United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2299

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

William Mansfield, also known as *

William H. Mansfield, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 8, 2010

Filed: May 13, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this appeal is whether the district court2

 clearly erred in imposing a

four-level increase to William Mansfield’s base offense level pursuant to United

States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. 

2

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 
of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. This is the second time we

have considered Mansfield’s case. See United States v. Mansfield, 560 F.3d 885 (8th

Cir. 2009). We previously remanded the case to the district court to make a specific

finding on “whether Mansfield’s firearm facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate,

his underlying drug possession offense.” Id. at 888. On remand, the district court

again imposed the four-level increase, finding the firearm “facilitated, or had the

potential to facilitate, i.e., protect, the heroin possessed by Mansfield.” Mansfield

again appeals, and we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

We recite the facts as stated in our previous opinion. 

On April 23, 2006, in response to a report of automatic gunfire,

sheriff deputies were dispatched to Mansfield’s residence. Upon arrival,

the deputies asked Mansfield if he had discharged any weapons.

Mansfield replied, “No.” The deputies then inquired if Mansfield had

identification. Mansfield informed the deputies he had identification in

his bedroom, and allowed the deputies to accompany him to retrieve the

identification. In the bedroom, the deputies observed a loaded pistol on

the nightstand as Mansfield attempted to conceal the pistol with a pillow. 

The deputies handcuffed Mansfield for officer safety. The deputies

asked Mansfield if he had any other weapons in the residence. Mansfield

answered affirmatively and led the deputies to a closet where two rifles

were located. One rifle receiver contained parts that converted the

weapon to a fully automatic M-16 machine gun. The barrel of this rifle

was “hot to the touch,” indicating the rifle had been fired recently. 

When asked, Mansfield acknowledged he knew the automatic machine

gun was illegal. The deputies confiscated the weapons and ammunition.

Mansfield, the sole caregiver for his elderly mother, was not then

arrested.

Later that same night, deputies were dispatched to Mansfield’s

residence for another shots fired call. Mansfield denied firing any

weapons, saying he had no more firearms. After obtaining consent to

conduct a search, the deputies located another semi-automatic rifle. The

-2-
deputies arrested Mansfield for possessing an illegal machine gun and

being a felon in possession of firearms.

On May 22, 2006, deputies were again dispatched to the Mansfield

residence after receiving a report concerning a fight and a man passed

out in Mansfield’s bathroom. When the deputies arrived, Mansfield was

sweating profusely and appeared to be agitated. Mansfield claimed only

he and his mother were present. The deputies pushed past Mansfield and

proceeded to the bathroom, finding a man lying unconscious on the

floor. While paramedics were attempting to revive the man, a deputy, at

the request of the paramedics, retrieved towels from the bathroom.

Wrapped inside the towels was a syringe containing a brown liquid, later

identified as heroin.

On May 24, 2006, officers executed a search warrant on the

Mansfield residence. A clear bag, containing twenty-six individual

packets of heroin, was found inside the toilet in Mansfield’s bathroom.

Among other things, the officers also found: five syringes, $252 in

United States currency, three pages containing notes regarding apparent

drug sales, two .45 caliber magazines, various ammunition, a letter

referring to marijuana cultivation, and a 9 mm pistol with three loaded

magazines. The pistol was discovered in a locked trunk in a basement

closet, separate from the heroin found in the main floor bathroom.

Mansfield was indicted on two counts of being a felon and drug

user in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (3)

and 924(a)(2); possession of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(o)(1), 921(a)(23), and 924(a)(2); and possession with the intent

to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). As part of a

written plea agreement, Mansfield entered a plea of guilty to three of the

four counts of the indictment. In return, the government dismissed the

charge for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

Following his guilty plea, Mansfield was sentenced on March 4,

2008. At sentencing, the district court imposed a four-level increase to

Mansfield’s base offense level pursuant to the advisory [Guidelines]

§ 2K2.1(b)(6). Mansfield objected, disputing the existence of a

-3-
connection between his possession of the firearms and the drugs. In

ruling on Mansfield’s objection, the district court stated:

I’m familiar with the additional case law in addition to the

case cited by defense counsel and when I consider that case

law and then the totality of what was going on there, the

activity at the house, the multiple gun incidents, the

multiple gun seizures, the drug activity and then this gun

with ammunition found at that point, I’m going to find that

it is in connection with and deny your objection to that.

Mansfield, 560 F.3d at 886-87. The district court sentenced Mansfield to 78 months

imprisonment. Id. at 886. 

Mansfield appealed the district court’s judgment, claiming the district court

erred in imposing the four-level enhancement. Id. at 887. We reversed and remanded

to the district court with instructions “to determine whether Mansfield’s firearm

facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate, his underlying drug offense.” Id. at 888. 

The district court resentenced Mansfield in May 2009. At the resentencing

hearing, the government presented testimony from Investigator Larry Keen of the

Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force. Investigator Keen participated in the execution

of the search warrant at Mansfield’s residence on May 24, 2006. According to

Investigator Keen, Mansfield was located near a bathroom when the officers entered

his residence. The officers then searched the bathroom and found twenty-six small

wax bags containing heroin floating in the toilet. Officers discovered a 9 mm pistol

with three loaded magazines in a trunk in the basement and a bullet proof vest and

helmet in another room of the house. Investigator Keen estimated from where

Mansfield was positioned in the residence, Mansfield would have been able to access

the firearm and loaded magazines within a minute “if [he] were in a hurry.” 

-4-
At the conclusion of the two-day hearing, the district court once again found a

four-level increase was appropriate pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). The district

court observed the twenty-six bags of heroin found floating in the toilet “was a large

supply and there was a reason to protect it and [Mansfield] was doing that.” Based on

the evidence in the record, the district court made a specific finding that the firearm

in the trunk “was there . . . to facilitate and have the potential to facilitate the

protection of that quantity of heroin.” The district court subsequently entered a

detailed sentencing memorandum reiterating the bases of its finding. Mansfield was

again sentenced to 78 months imprisonment. 

II. DISCUSSION

“We review de novo the district court’s application of the . . . Guidelines, and

we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings.” United States v.

Guiheen, 594 F.3d 589, 591 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Betts, 509 F.3d

441, 445 (8th Cir. 2007)). “The district court’s determination that the defendant

possessed the firearm[] in connection with another felony is a factual finding that we

review for clear error.” Id. (quoting United States v. Bates, 561 F.3d 754, 758 (8th

Cir. 2009)). “A finding is clearly erroneous ‘only if we have a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Byas, 581

F.3d 723, 725 (8th Cir. 2009)). 

Section 2K2.1(b)(6) advises, “If the defendant used or possessed any firearm

or ammunition in connection with another felony offense . . . increase [the base

offense level] by 4 levels.” The four-level increase should be “appl[ied] if the firearm

. . . facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6) cmt. n.14(A) (emphasis added). If the underlying felony is drug

trafficking, “Application Note 14(B) mandates application of the adjustment if guns

and drugs are in the same location.” United States v. Blankenship, 552 F.3d 703, 705

(8th Cir. 2009). “If the underlying drug offense is for simple possession, the district

court may still apply the adjustment, but only after making a finding that the firearm

-5-
facilitated the drug offense.” Id. The district court’s finding may be based on a

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 377 (8th

Cir. 2009). 

The transcript of the resentencing hearing and the district court’s subsequent

memorandum make clear the district court understood its task and carefully

considered counsels’ arguments and the evidence in the record. The district court

(1) discussed the context and proximity in which the large quantity of heroin and the

firearm with the three loaded magazines were found; (2) noted four other firearms had

been seized from Mansfield’s residence approximately a month before the search

warrant was executed, giving Mansfield incentive to hide this firearm in a secure

place; and (3) pointed out that, because Mansfield had such a large quantity of heroin

in his home, he had motive to protect it. For these reasons, the district court made a

specific finding that Mansfield’s firearm facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate,

his possession of heroin. The district court adequately articulated specific reasons for

its finding, and that finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We

cannot say the district court clearly erred in making this finding. See Guiheen, 594

F.3d at 591. 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-6-