NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0660n.06 No. 08-1018 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v.
TERENCE L . WI L L I AMS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE W ES TER

N DI S TR I CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : SI L ER, GI B B ON S, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Tere nce Williams appeals his sentenc e following his conviction of

c on sp ir a c y

to dis tr ibute and to pos se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bute fi ve kil og ra ms o r m or e of

c oc a ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)( 1) and 841 ( b)(1) (A). Williams argues that the district cour t

err ed in (1) imposing a two-le vel enha nceme n t t o h i s sentenc ing guidelines ca lculation for possession of a da

ng erous weap o n pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)( 1); and (2) assessinga cr iminal history point for a 1992 juvenile se ntence under U SSG § 4A1.2(d)(2). We a ffirm t h e two-le vel enhanc ement for

possession of a fir ear

m, vacate th e criminal history calc ulation, and re mand for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. Wil liams argues that the distri ct cour t erre d in enhanc ing his sente ncingg uidelines calc ulation for possession of fir ear ms beca use they wer e not actually prese nt during the drug off ense.No. 08-1018

United States v. W

illiams

- 2 - We r eview the enhanc ement for clea r er ror. See U

nited States v. W

heaton , 517 F .3 d 350 , 3 67 (6 th Cir. 2008). S ec t i o n2 D1

. 1 (b )( 1 ) o f t h e G u i d el i n es s t at es th at “[ i ] f ad an ger o u s we ap o n(i n cl u d i n g a fi re arm ) wa s po sse sse d, inc re a se by 2 le ve ls. ” Ei the r a c tua l or c on str uc tiv e po sse ssi on

of fi re arm s will support the enhanc ement. Un ite d S tates v . Pru itt , 156 F.3d 638, 649 ( 6th Cir. 1998). I n order to establish constructive possession, “ the g overnme nt must show that the def endant ha d owner ship, dominion, or c ontrol over the [firearm] or dominion over the pre mises where the [firear m] is located. Ci rcumstantial evide nce is suff icient to establish constructive posse ssion.” Un i t ed S ta t es v. M iggins , 30 2 F

. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 1 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. O n c e th e g o v e r n m e n t i s a

b l e t o s a tis fy

its burden of showing possession, “then the bur den shifts to the defe ndant t o d emonstrate that it was clea rly improbable that the w eapon w as conne cted to the of fense .” Id . Fur

thermore , the g overnme nt must show only that the dang erous wea pon was possesse d during “re levant conduc t.” United States v. Faison , 339 F.3d 518, 520 (6th Cir. 2003) . Relevant c onduct is “all ac ts and omissions . . . t hat

wer e par t of the same c ourse of conduct or common scheme or plan a s the offe nse of c onviction.” Id . at 520 (c iting USSG § 1B1.3( a)( 2)). There was suff

icient evidenc e to support a f ind i n g that Wil liams was in constructive p o s s e s s i o no f

t h e l o a d e d

f i r e ar m s f o u n d a t h i s m o th e r ’ s r e s i d e n c e d ur i n g t h e t i m e o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y. F ir st, he us e d h is m oth e r’ s a dd re ss o n h is d

ri ve r’ s li c e ns e and

he re c e ive d ma il the re a s w e ll. Second, the we apons found at his mot her’ s residenc e we re the ty pes of we apons used by

drug tr a ff ic ke rs (t wo Gl oc k s e mi- a

uto mati c ha

nd g un s, a Te c -9 se mi- a

uto matic pis tol , a

nd a 7. 62 se miautomatic assa

ult rifle). Third, a

mmuniti on and a loa ded mag azine for the 7.62 as s au l t rifle we reNo. 08-1018

United States v. W

illiams

- 3 - found in Wil liams’s residenc e, tog ether with a re ceipt for a st orag e unit wher e anothe r 1,000 rounds of 7.62 ammunition were found– conne cting him to the rifle found at his mother’s re sidence . Four th,

a t le a st o ne wi tne ss s tate d th a t he ha d s e e n Williams ins ide his ho me wi th a n “ AR -1 5 s tyle a ssa

ult rifle having a l arg e mag azine.” And f inally , the wea

pons were found on the date on which the conspirac y

alleg edly ended. I n r e sp onse , Wil liams p ro vid e d n o e vid e nc e ind ic a tin g tha t th e c onne c tio n b e tw e e n h is offe nses and the f

irea rms was clea

rly improbable. There fore , he fa iled to meet his burden. As suc h, the district court did not clea rly err in imposi ng the enha

nceme nt. Wil liams also challeng es t he inclusi on of a 1992 juvenile proc eedingin his criminal history cal cul ati on becau se i t d idno t occu r wit hi n fiv e y ears of t he i ns tan t o ffen se. S ect io n 4 A1. 2(d )(2 )(B) of the Gu ide lin es re qu ir e s th e se nte nc ingc ourt to “ a dd 1 p oint . . . f

or e a c h a du lt o r j uv e nil e senten c e im

p o s e d w it h in f iv e y e ar s o f

th e d e f e n d an t’ s c o mm e n c e me n t o f th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e (not oth e rw ise c ounte d) .” Willi ams’ s juve nil e se nte nc e wa s im po se d o n M ay

7, 19 92 . T he re fo re , in order for that sentenc e to be counted for criminal history purposes, the instant of fense must h ave begun within five y ear s of that date, or prior to May

7, 1997. Al tho ug h th e re le va

nt t ime pe ri od

us e d f or de te rm ini ngwh e the r t

he juv e nil e of

fe ns e sh ou ld be inc lud e d is fi ve y e ars un de r U SSG § 4 A1 .2 (d )( 2) (B ), the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly

us e d te n y e ars . At sentenc ing, it aske d the g overnme nt whether the “c onviction wa s o b t ai n ed withi n ten y ear s prec edingthe involvemen t in the criminal ac tivity that is at issue? ” The g overnme nt responded: “Ye s, Your Honor , cer

tainly within ten y ear s. Wi thin five y ear s if y ou look at the other e vidence .”No. 08-1018

United States v. W

illiams

- 4 - Wit hout making a

ny further ref ere nce to the rele vant time pe riod, the district court c oncluded that “I think Ihave to c alculate that. I t’s not a matter in my discretion.” Whil e the district cour

t on remand ma

y consider e vidence demonstratingthat incl u s i o n of the 1 9 9 2 juv e n il e o f

f e n s e in th e c r im in a l h is to r

y c a lc u lati o nw a s p r o p e r , it mu s t m ak e the deter mination using the re levant five -y ear period unde r USSG § 4A1.2(d)( 2)(B ). In all other respe cts, the judg ment is affirme d. AFF I RMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMAND ED.