2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2003 

# U SA v . S t epp P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 02-4415

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . S t e pp " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 543. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/543NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ Case No: 02-4415

__________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JOHN LEE STE PP, a/k/a John L. Stapp, a/k /a S pe ed y, Appellant
On A ppeal Fro m Th e Un ited States District Co urt For T he W estern Distric t of P enns ylvania (Cr im. No. 0 1- CR- 0040E) District Judge: T he H onorab le Ma urice B. C ohill, Jr.

__________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 16, 2003

__________ Be for e: R EN DE LL , SM ITH and AL DI SE RT , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: May 20, 2003)

___________ OPI NION

____________ SM ITH , Circuit

Judge I.2

Stepp all eges that

the Dist rict Court erred in appl yi ng a four-l evel enhance ment pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidel ines Manual § 2K2.1(b) (5). For the reasons that follo w, w e w ill aff irm. II. On N ovem ber 5, 200 1, appellant Joh n Lee S tepp, Lam ar Tho mas an d Ro bert Tarver were st anding in t he vici nity

of East 22 nd Street

in Erie , Pennsy lvania . Stepp gave Ta rv er a q ua rte r o un ce ofcr ac k c oc ain e to br ea k d ow n f or fu rth er di str ib ut io n. S ud de nl y, a man known as Twin Beason came by, gr abbed the cocaine from Tarver and fled. Thomas gave a handgun to Ste pp, who then went i n search of Beason who he wished to sc are in retal iati on for st eali ng the cocai ne. Officer s apprehended Stepp, Thomas and Tarver beforetheyfound Beason. At the time of t he arres t, t

he handgun was bac k in the p oss essio n of Th om as. Step p pled guilty to on e cou nt of b eing a felon in po ssessio n ofa firea rm in violat ion of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) . Stepp’ s Presentence Invest igati on Report (“PSR”) recommend ed th at t

he bas e offen se l evel be in crea sed byfour po int s, p ursu ant to U.S. Sen tencin g G uidelin es M anua l § 2K 2.1(b )(5), be caus e the g un w as po ssesse d “in connecti on with” a drug t ransaction. PSR ¶ 17. Stepp objected to thi s increase, but Judg e Co hill den ied his o bjectio n and senten ced h im to 9 0 m onth s imp risonm ent. Th e D istrict Co urt h ad ju risdi ction ove r the sen tenc ing pur sua nt to 18 U .S.C . § 3231, and we have jurisdi ction ove r the appe al purs uant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291 and 183

U.S .C. § 374 2. III. The facts are not in di spute. Our review of the Dis tri ct Court’ s interpret ation and app licatio n of the S ente ncin g G uid eline s ph rase “in c onn ectio n w ith” i s ple nar y. See Un ited Sta tes v. C icirello , 301 F .3d 13 5, 137 (3d C ir. 2002 ); Un ited Sta tes v. Titc hell , 261 F.3 d 34 8, 35 3 (3 d C ir. 20 01) . U.S. Sentenc ing Guideli nes Manual § 2K2.1(b)( 5) states: “[i]f t he defendant us ed or posses sed anyfirearm or ammuniti on in con nec tion wit h an oth er fe lon y off ens e . . . increa se by 4 level s.” Stepp argues t hat it was not possible for hi m to possess the handgun “in connect

ion with” t

he drug tr ansacti on because he had not obtaine d the
we apo n fr om Th om as u ntil a fter he h and ed th e co cain e to T arv er. The lan guage “‘in conne ction with’ is no table for its ‘vague ness and pliability ’” and the phra se “‘shoul d be inte rpreted broadly .’” Un ited S tates v. Lo ney , 219 F.3d 281, 283-84 (3d Cir . 2000) ( internal ci tati ons omitted). Connection “can encompass any ‘casualor logi cal re lati on or sequence. ’” Id . at 284 (quoti ng Webster’s Ninth New Co llegiate D ictiona ry 278 (1 990 )); see als o United Stat es v. Brannan , 74 F.3d 448, 453 (3d Cir. 1996). But, it requires “more than j ust that theperson committed a fel ony offense and at

some point i n time and i n some place poss essed a gun. ” Loney , 219 F.3d at 28 6. B as ed on th is b ro ad de fin itio n, w he n g un po ss es sio n a ris es as a r es ul t o f a fe lo ny, such posses sion i s “in connec tion wit h” that felony . Here, Stepp obtai ned the gun4

specifi call y to scare Beason and get thecocaine bac k from him. This was “in connection with” Stepp’ s drug tr ansacti on with Tarver . Had it not been for

the drug t

ransaction, Stepp would not havepursued Beason with the gun. Although Stepp di d not have the gun during hi s drug tr ansacti on, we have impli citly rejected the ar gument that a gun must be posse ssed duri ng a felonyto be pos sess ed “ in co nne ction ” w ith th at fe lon y. Cf. Loney, 219 F.3d at 287 ( noting t hat the Supreme Court’s inter

pretat ion of what const

itutes carryi ng a gun “in re lati on to” a drug traffi cking offensein viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1) mayshed li ght on the meani ng of “in c onn ectio n to ,” bu t that the “ dur ing ” req uire me nt o f § 9 24( c)(1 ) is in app licab le). M oreo ver, the fact th at Co ngre ss cho se no t to use th e ‘“in c onn ection with the commission or attempted commissi on of a not her off ens e” la ngu age fro m U .S.S .G. § 2K2.1(c), suggests that § 2K2. 1(b)(5) does not require t hat thegun be possess ed during the commissi on of the fel ony. Therefore, Stepp posses sed a gun “in c onnecti on with” the d rug tran sac tion , eve n th oug h he obt aine d it af ter th e dr ug t ran sac tion wa s co mp leted . W e w ill aff irm t he s ente nce imp ose d by th e D istrict Co urt.

______________________________________ TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing Opini on. /s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge Date: May 20, 2003