# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 16 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mi ch ael Jo hn W al ke r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 18, 2 01 8
Fi le d: Aug us t 1 7, 2 01 8 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d GRAS Z, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Thi s cas e ret ur ns to us aft er res en te nc in g. In th e pr ev io us ap pe al

, we va cat ed

an d rem an de d fo r reco ns id erat io n of whe th er Mi ch ael W al ke r, who was co nv ic te d of

be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , qu al ifi ed as a n a rm ed care er cr im in al

. See

Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r , 84 0 F.3 d 47 7, 49 0– 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). O n r em an d, th e

go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed th at W al ke r is no t an arm ed care er cri m in al

, bu t so ug h t a 4

-le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r USSG § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) fo r p o s s e s s i n g a fir earm “ in

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se .” The di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e

en ha nc em en t

, a n d W al ke r ap pe al s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of

th e Gui de li ne s d e no vo an d it s fact -fi nd in g for cle ar er ro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bark er , 55 6 F .3d 68 2, 6 89 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W al ke r was arre st ed whi le dr iv in g a ve hi cl e in Mi nn eap ol is

. In th e tru nk of th e

ve hi cl e was a sh ot gu n an d am m un it io n. On th e flo or

bo ard of th e pa ss en ge r

co m pa rtment was a sm al l am ou nt of crac k co cai ne

. It is no t cl ear whe th er th e co cai ne
be lo n g e d t o Wa l ke r, who was dr iv in g, or hi s pa ss en ge r (wh o, du rin g a su bs eq ue nt

se arch

, was fo un d to be hi di ng m ari juan a). The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th at it was on ly

a us er am ou nt of co cai ne ; th ere i s no su gg es ti on th at W al ke r was in vo lv ed in dr ug
di st rib ut io n. Valu ab le s fo un d in th e pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment of th e car were la te r

li nk ed to a bu rg la ry

. The go ve rn m en t in tro du c e d ev id en ce th at W al ke r ha d pu rch as ed

am m un it io n fo r th e sh ot gu n, bu t no ev id en ce of ho w W al ke r ha d us ed th e fir earm , if

at all

.

The Gui de li ne s pr ov id e fo r a 4- le ve l en ha nc em en t “ [i]f th e de fen da nt

. . . us ed

o r p o ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n in co nn ect io n wi th an ot he r f e l o n y
of fen se

. . . .” USSG § 2 K 2

. 1 ( b ) ( 6) (B) (em ph as is ad de d)

. App li cat io n no te 14 (A)

e x p l a i n s th at th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s “ if th e fir earm or am m un it io n fa ci li ta te d, o r
ha d t he po te nt ia l o

f f ac il it at in g , an ot he r

fel on y off en se .” Id

. at c om m en t (n .14 (A))
(em ph as is ad de d)

. Not e 14 (B) fu rth er ex pl ai ns th at , wh en th e ot he r f e l o n y o f f e ns e
is a dr ug tra ffi ck in g of

fen se , th e en ha nc em en t app li es whe ne ve r “ a fir earm is fo un d

i n cl os e pr ox im it y to dr ug s, dr ug -m an uf act ur in g m at eri al s, or dr

ug pa rap he rn al ia .”

Id

. at co m m en t (n.1 4( B)); se e al so Uni te d Stat es v. Bl an ke ns hi p , 55 2 F.3d 70 3, 70 5
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (n ot in g th at

, if th e “ ot he r fel on y ” is a dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se , “ Not e

14 (B) m an da te s ap pl ic at io n of th e ad jus tm en t if gu ns an d dr ug s are in th e sa m e
lo cat io n” ).

-2

-Bu t he re, th e ot he r fel on y of fe n se is m ere po ss es si on of dr ug s, an d th e
Gui de li ne s “ tre at dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se s an d dr ug po ss es si on of fen se s di ffer en tl y ”

fo r th e pu rp os es of th e en ha nc em en t. Uni te d St at es v. Fu en te s Torr es , 52 9 F.3 d 82 5,

82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ W he n th e ot he r fel on y of fen se is m erel y a d r u g p o s s es si on

of fen se , no te 14 (A) ap pl ie s,” no t no te 14 (B). Id

. ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Sn eed

, 74 2

F.3 d 34 1, 34 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Thu s, in th is cas e, th e en ha nc em en t is ap pr op ria te on ly

if th e sh ot gu n “ faci li ta te d, or ha d th e po te nt ia l of faci li ta ti ng ,” Wa l k e r ’s dr ug

po ss es si on

. Fu en te s Torr es , 52 9 F.3 d at 8 2 7

. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at a

“ te m po ral an d sp aci al ne xu s be twee n th e dr ug s an d fir earm s,” st an di ng al on e, is

in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at th e fir earm s faci li ta te d th e fel on y of fen se of si m

pl e dr ug

po ss es si on

. Sn eed

, 74 2 F.3 d at 34 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dalt on , 55 7 F.3 d 58 6,

58 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). “ In ot he r wor ds , when th e d efen da nt su bjec t t o a 2K2 .1(b )(6 )

ad jus tm en t po ss es se s a ‘use r’ am ou nt of dr ug s

. . . th e di st ric t co ur t m us t affi rm at iv el y

m ak e a fin di ng th at th e weap on or weap on s faci li ta te d th e dr ug of fe n s e b e f or e

ap pl y in g t he ad

jus tm en t.” Bl an ke ns hi p , 55 2 F .3d at 7 05

.

The res en te nc in g reco rd do es no t su pp or t th e en ha nc em en t. The sh ot gu n was
lo ck ed in th e tru nk of W al ke r’s ve hi cl e, an d th ere is no ev id en ce he cou ld acce ss it

,

or ha d us ed it at al l. The us er qu an ti ty o f c o cai ne was fo un d in th e pa ss en ge r

co m pa rtment, on th e flo or bo ard

. The go ve rn m en t of fere d n o e v i d e n ce to li nk th e

co cai ne in si de th e car to th e sh ot gu n in th e tru nk

. And th ere was no di rect ev id en ce

pr es en te d th at it was W al ke r, an d no t hi s pa ss en ge r, who po ss es se d th e co cai ne

. On

th es e fac ts

, it was cl ear erro r to fin d t ha t t he fir earm faci li ta te d, o r ha d t he po te nt ia l

to faci li ta te , th e p os se ss io n o f a u se r qu an ti ty of dr ug s.

Thi s cas e is un li ke th os e whe re th e ev id en ce s ho wed a si m ul ta ne ou s po ss es si on

of fir earm s an d dr ug s, fo r in st an ce, whe re “ th e fir earm was fo un d in a ba ck pa ck an d

th e dr ug s in [th e de fen da nt ’s] po ck et ,” Sn eed

, 74 2 F.3 d at 34 4, or whe re po li ce fo un d

dr ug s in th e pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment of a ve hi cl e an d a fir earm “ be twee n th e dr iv er’s

se at an d cen te r co ns ol e, wit h th e bu tt of th e gu n in a vi si bl e po si ti on .” Uni te d St at es

-3

-v. Swan so n , 61 0 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Hol m , 74 5

F.3 d 93 8, 94 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (fi nd in g th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d whe re de fen da nt ha d

a lo ad ed rev ol ve r in hi s wais tb an d an d a ba gg ie co nt ai n i n g on e-h al f gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e whe n pu ll ed ov er in a tra ffi c st op ). Here, th e e v id en ce sh ows a

te m po ral an d sp aci al ne xu s be twee n th e dr ug s an d fir earm , bu t no m or e. Tha t is no t

en ou gh

. Fu en te s To rres , 52 9 F .3d at 8 27

.

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at “ th ere is no ev id en ce, an d W al ke r do es no t su gg es t

an y , of a reas on why he wou ld ha ve ha d th at gu n or pu rch as ed th at am m un it io n, ot he r
th an to pr ot ect th e dr ug s or to pr ot ect hi m se lf d u r i n g h i s act iv it ie s of bu y in g,

carr y in g, an d us in g crac k co cai ne .” Bu t th is arg um en t m is pl aces th e bu rd en of pr oo f.

The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g fact s to su pp or t a § 2K2 .1( b ) ( 6 ) ( B )

en ha nc e men t; th e de fen da nt ne ed no t in tro du ce ev id en ce to sh ow th e en ha nc em en t

do es no t ap pl y to hi m

. See Uni te d St at es v. Raz o- Gue rra , 53 4 F.3 d 97 0, 97 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ). Th e g o v e r nm en t’s arg um en t al so m is un de rs ta nd s it s bu rd en of pr oo f. A
§ 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t is im pr op er whe n th e go ve rn m en t’s on ly ev id en ce is

a ge ne ral iz ed co nn ect io n be twee n a gu n an d a us er qu an ti ty of d r ug s. In st ead

, th is

Gui de li ne s pr ov is io n req ui res ev id en ce to sh ow th e fir earm at is su e faci li ta te d, or ha d

th e po te nt ia l t o faci li ta te

, th e fel on y po ss es si on of dr ug s. In th is reg ard

, th e

go ve rn m en t fa il ed to m eet it s b ur de n.

The go ve rn m en t al so co nt en ds th at th e st ol en va lu ab le s fo un d in th e pa ss en ge r

c o m pa rtment of W al ke r’s car su pp or t a fin di ng th at W al ke r po ss es se d th e gu n in

co nn ect io n wit h th e cri m e of bu rg la ry

. W e di sa gr ee. The go ve rn m en t pro ffer ed no

ev id en ce li nk in g th e st ol en it em s to th e sh ot gu n or W al ke r to th e bu rg la ry

. W e ag ai n

fin d th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to m eet i ts bu rd en of sh owi ng th e fir earm was

co nn ect ed wit h a no th er fe lo ny offen se

.

-4

-The di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e USSG § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t is

rev ers ed an d th e cas e is rem an de d wit h in st ru ct io ns to res en te nc e W al ke r wit ho ut th e

en ha nc em en t. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

1 W al ke r al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en co ns is te nt wit h th e on e

rece iv ed by Sam

ue l Jo hn so n, who se or ig in al se nt en ce was rev ers ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t. See Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 5 1

, 2 5 6 3 (2 01 5)

. Bec au se we

rem an d fo r res en te nc in g, we d o n ot reac h t hi s ar gu m en t.

-5

-