Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1078627.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-13 13:34:48
Document Index: 442930593

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20025861', '§\u2002922', '§\u2002841', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20024', '§\u20023', '§\u20023', '§\u20023', '§\u20023', '§\u20023', '§\u20024']

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Boyd Vance ELLIS, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 98-1482.
Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, CUDAHY,* Senior Circuit Judge, and STAHL, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey M. Silverstein with whom Billings & Silverstein was on brief for appellant. Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael Love, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
Ellis was indicted for (1) knowing possession of an unregistered shotgun, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5871; (2) being a felon in knowing possession of the shotgun, the revolver, or the ammunition, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (3) cultivating marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C).
At a jury trial, Ellis admitted his role in the marijuana cultivation in opening argument and again during his own testimony. Ellis contested only the intent element of his firearms convictions. He sought to introduce evidence that in 1991, during a prior search of his property by agents of the Maine Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE), Ellis, a prior convicted felon, had inquired about the legality of the ammunition he then possessed. Ellis testified that a BIDE officer told him he would get back to him about the issue. No one ever did. Ellis sought to testify that, on the basis of this failure to get back to him, he reasonably concluded that the possession of the ammunition was legal, notwithstanding his status as a convicted felon. The court refused to admit this evidence of-or to instruct the jury on-the defense of entrapment by estoppel. Although Ellis requested such an instruction at a charge conference, he failed to object after the instructions were given.
At sentencing, the court explicitly found that Ellis had knowingly possessed the revolver, as well as the uncharged weapons. On the basis of prior convictions dating from 1975-1983, and on its findings regarding the weapons, the district court increased the base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines provisions associated with being an armed career criminal, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, which in this case trumped the normal guidelines calculations. Finally, the court chose the higher of two potentially applicable armed career criminal base offense levels. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). The level the court selected was applicable to defendants found to have been in possession of firearms “in connection with another felony.” Id. Ellis was sentenced to, inter alia, 262 months' imprisonment.
B. Special Verdict Form
III. Sentencing
Ellis raises four arguments in his sentencing appeal. First, he claims that the district court made conflicting factual findings that were not supported by the evidence. Second, he protests the use of “ancient” convictions to trigger the armed career criminal enhancement. Third, he contends that the district court erred by increasing his base offense level for possession of firearms “in connection with another felony.” Finally, he argues that he was entitled to a base offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We address these points seriatim.
A. Factual Findings Regarding the Possession of Firearms
First, the court need not have made any finding regarding the handgun. As Ellis admitted in a presentencing conference, the armed career criminal guideline to which this finding was relevant is satisfied by either a firearm or ammunition. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). It is uncontested that Ellis knowingly possessed ammunition. Second, we point out that the district court made no finding at all regarding the shotgun; rather, the court simply declined to consider it. Thus, the inconsistency to which Ellis points does not exist. Finally, even if we were to treat the district court's failure to consider the shotgun as an implicit finding that Ellis did not knowingly possess it, a decision to treat the shotgun and the handgun differently is amply supported by the evidence. Although both the shotgun and the handgun were recovered from the bureau, the shotgun was dusty, while the handgun was clean. The shotgun was old, while the handgun was newer. The handgun, as opposed to the shotgun, was well-maintained. The shotgun was in a holster and the handgun was not. In fact, a holster into which the handgun fit was found in a more accessible drawer. Most importantly, there was testimony that a shell found on the premises had actually been fired from the handgun. Based on these relevant differences, there is no clear error.
B. Armed Career Criminal Status
C. “In Connection With”
Ellis argues that there was an insufficient nexus between the possession of the firearms and the marijuana cultivation. For this reason, he argues that the district court erred in using U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) to enhance his offense level for possession of firearms “in connection with” a controlled substance offense.
In this case, the guideline relevant to armed career criminals controls. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b). In relevant part, it provides for a base offense level of 34 “if the defendant used or possessed the firearm or ammunition in connection with a ․ controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added). If not, the applicable level is 33. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(B). In addition, the “in connection with” finding raises Ellis's criminal history category from I to VI. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(c)(2). Here, the district court used the 34 base level and category VI, apparently because it found the requisite “connection.” The district court did not, however, make any explicit findings on this issue.
Although the phrase “in connection with” should be construed broadly, there must exist a causal or logical relation or sequence between the possession and the related offense. See Thompson, 32 F.3d at 5. Mere coincidental possession does not establish the required connection. See id. at 6. However, if the possession has “the potential to aid or facilitate” the other crime, that is sufficient. Id.
Here, the two charged weapons were located in a building separate from the marijuana operation. They were under a bureau, in a small room in which, by the government's own admission, it was difficult to shift furniture. In short, they were largely inaccessible, which weighs against finding a “connection.”
Nevertheless, the government makes two sets of arguments-one in its brief and one at oral argument-which it says would permit us to affirm the district court's implicit finding of a “connection.” In its brief, the government points to the following evidence as supporting the district court's conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to find such a nexus: (1) the fact that 80% of drug crimes in Maine also involve firearms violations; (2) the fact that Ellis cultivated his crop hidden from plain view; (3) the fact that marijuana is worth $2,000 per pound on the street. At oral argument, the government suggested that the two additional uncharged weapons found in the garage and kitchen respectively could support an “in connection with” finding. It also suggested that the sheer number of weapons on the property (four) supports an inference of a connection.
Combined with the fact that the charged guns and random ammunition were both inaccessible and nowhere near the marijuana alleged to be protected by them, the three items of “evidence” to which the government alludes in its appellate brief are not sufficient for us to affirm the district court's implicit finding of a “connection.” The first item has nothing to do with Ellis and, in any event, would always apply, whether possession was coincidental or not, in derogation of Thompson. The second item only reflects the fact that marijuana is illegal; it is unclear what relevance the marijuana's being hidden has to the guns. In regard to the third item, the government's recitation of the street value of marijuana adds nothing to the analysis; again, drugs have significant value on the street even when the firearms possession is merely coincidental to the drug operation. The third point is particularly unpersuasive on the facts before us, where the total amount of marijuana recovered from the cultivation operation-thirty-six-and-one-half grams-was worth approximately $160, using the government's estimate (.0365g X 2.2 lbs./kg X $2000/lb.).
The government's suggested “connections” at oral argument are perhaps marginally more persuasive. In the absence of any explicit findings by the district court to support the government's position, however, and in light of the fact that at sentencing the government specifically declined to provide any evidence with regard to the additional uncharged weapons, we vacate Ellis's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.3
D. Acceptance of Responsibility
Ellis also argues that he was entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. His acceptance purportedly consisted of his counsel's admission of Ellis's guilt on the marijuana charge in opening argument, his own testimony to the same effect, and the fact that he challenged only the intent element of the firearms charges. The district court declined to award the reduction. The district court's reasoning is not entirely clear; it relied on Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. This Note gives, inter alia, examples of cases where a defendant may elect to go to trial and yet still receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The sentencing transcript suggests that it is possible the district court believed that because Ellis's trial issues were not related to jurisdiction or constitutionality, the latter of which is an example offered in Application Note 2, Ellis was not eligible for the reduction.
In “rare situations”, a defendant may elect to exercise his right to trial and still be eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. See Application Note 2. These rare situations are not limited, however, to jurisdictional and constitutional matters. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 Application Note 2 (offering example of defendant who challenges applicability of a statute to his conduct); Isabel v. United States, 980 F.2d 60, 65 (1st Cir.1992) (acknowledging that where a defendant admits his conduct and denies only that it constitutes money laundering under the relevant statute, he may be eligible for an acceptance of responsibility reduction) (dicta); United States v. Barris, 46 F.3d 33, 35 (8th Cir.1995) (assertion of insanity defense at trial not an automatic bar to reduction for acceptance of responsibility). In some cases, defenses relating to intent may yet qualify for the acceptance of responsibility reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Fleener, 900 F.2d 914, 918 (6th Cir.1990) (defendant's going to trial to raise entrapment defense does not preclude award of reduction for acceptance of responsibility); but see United States v. Kirkland, 104 F.3d 1403, 1405 (D.C.Cir.1997) (sharply criticizing Fleener and holding that intent-based defenses are contests over factual guilt and thus not qualified for the reduction). In all cases, “a determination that a defendant has accepted responsibility will be based primarily upon pre-trial statements and conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 Application Note 2 (emphasis added).
Although this record indicates that Ellis has an uphill battle in showing his eligibility for the acceptance of responsibility credit, cf. United States v. Crass, 50 F.3d 81, 84 (1st Cir.1995) (“[I]ntent, like any other element of the crime charged, may not be contested by the defendant without jeopardizing a downward adjustment for ‘acceptance of responsibility.’ ”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Bennett, 37 F.3d 687, 697 (1st Cir.1994) (defendant who contested the issue of intent at trial and only expressed remorse after trial is not eligible for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility), nonetheless the district court should determine the matter in the first instance or at least clarify its prior reasoning for denying the reduction, if it has occasion to address the issue on resentencing.4
1. In addition to the arguments discussed in the text of this opinion, Ellis also argues that there was no probable cause to support issuing the search warrant. In a footnote, he asserts but does not argue that the “good faith” exception is not applicable. Regardless of the probable cause issue, the “good faith” exception clearly would apply here. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Ellis's argument to the contrary is plainly without merit and, in any case, having failed to present developed argument, Ellis has forfeited the issue. See King v. Town of Hanover, 116 F.3d 965, 970 (1st Cir.1997).
2. Of course, in circumstances like these, a district court has discretion to use special verdict forms, should it so decide. See United States v. Melvin, 27 F.3d 710, 716 (1st Cir.1994).
3. We leave it up to the district court to determine whether the enhancement should be applied, but either way, explicit findings need to be made.
4. If the district court finds no “connection” between the firearms possession and the marijuana cultivation, it should then also address the acceptance of responsibility issue. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(B).