Opinion ID: 1463389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonableness of Benson's Sentence

Text: Benson argues that his sentence was unreasonable based on an erroneous two-point firearm enhancement and the disparity between the sentences he and his co-defendants received. [W]e review the sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness utilizing the `familiar abuse of discretion standard.' Moon, 513 F.3d at 539 (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 594). For the following reasons, we find that Benson's sentence was reasonable.
Benson argues that assignment of the two-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a firearm during commission of the drug conspiracy was unreasonable. Specifically, he argues that there was no evidence that he carried a gun and there was no clear connection between himself and the guns used in the drug conspiracy. `A district court's finding that a defendant possessed a firearm during a drug crime is a factual finding subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.' United States v. Darwich, 337 F.3d 645, 664 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Bartholomew, 310 F.3d 912, 924 (6th Cir.2002)). However, if factual findings of the district court are not challenged, and only the application of those facts as to the Guidelines is challenged, then our review is de novo. See United States v. Chalkias, 971 F.2d 1206, 1216 n. 12 (6th Cir.1992). Since Benson only challenges that the guns he possessed at his apartment were not clearly connected to the conspiracy, we review de novo. See id. Benson acknowledges that two guns were found in his Long Boulevard apartment, but quickly dismisses them as insufficient under § 2D1.1 because they were without ammunition and he alleges they were not connected to the conspiracy. Under § 2D1.1(b)(1), a two-level increase in a defendant's base offense level is warranted if the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon, such as a firearm, during a drug-related crime. Witnesses testified that Benson was known to possess two handguns. During the search of Benson's apartment on Long Boulevard, two firearms and ammunition were found. Since Benson possessed the firearms at his apartment during the time of the drug conspiracy, the government met its burden of proving possession of the firearms during the offense. See United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 390-91 (6th Cir.2002). Once possession of the firearms during the drug offense was shown, a presumption arose that the guns were connected to the offense. See id. at 391. Benson was then required to rebut the presumption by showing that it was clearly improbable that the guns were connected to the offense. See id. at 390-91. Benson failed to do so. Here, there were two weapons (a shotgun and a rifle), ammunition (albeit for different weapons that are not used for hunting), and there was drug paraphernalia (kilo wrappers, baking soda) found at Benson's residence. Benson used this residence for drug trafficking activity. Although Benson argues there was no connection between the firearms at the residence and the drug conspiracy, the evidence shows otherwise. Thus, Benson did not meet his burden of proving that it was clearly improbable that the two firearms were related to the conspiracy. See United States v. Edmonds, 9 Fed.Appx. 330, 332 (6th Cir.2001) (listing six factors for determining relatedness to the conspiracy). Benson also argues that there was not a clear connection between the guns found at Humphry's residence and the conspiracy as to attribute the guns to him. The § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearms enhancement can be applied to a defendant's sentence if the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that a co-conspirator had weapons in connection to the drug conspiracy. United States v. Gross, 77 Fed.Appx. 338, 343 (6th Cir.2003). `[T]he enhancement of a sentence can be imposed only on the basis of the defendant's conduct or the conduct of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy that was known to the defendant or was reasonably foreseeable.' Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 894 F.2d 208, 212 (6th Cir.1990)). Unlike the challenge to the application of the Guidelines enhancement for the firearms found in his apartment, Benson's challenge to the district court's finding that he knew Humphry possessed several weapons, and it was reasonably foreseeable that these weapons were used in the conspiracyis a challenge to the district court's factual findings, which we review for clear error. See Gross, 77 Fed.Appx. at 343; Darwich, 337 F.3d at 664. The evidence supports the finding that Humphry possessed firearms and kept them at the residence that he used as a hub for his drug trafficking activities. Further, Benson knew or could have reasonably foreseen that Humphry, a major drug trafficker, possessed weapons in the residence where he kept a significant drug supply and thousands of dollars in currency. Therefore, the application of the two-level enhancement for the possession of a firearm was not clearly erroneous as it was reasonably foreseeable that Benson knew the weapons would be used in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Benson argues that his sentence is unreasonable because he received a lengthier sentence than his co-defendants. He especially challenges the sentence of Shank, who was convicted of three more counts, but received less time in prison. He does not challenge the procedures of implementing his sentence, but argues his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Section § 3553(a)(6) requires the sentencing court to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. However, section 3553(a)(6) is concerned with national disparities among the many defendants with similar criminal backgrounds convicted of similar criminal conduct. United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623 (2007) (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). Here, Benson was sentenced within the Guidelines range and, thus, his sentence is presumably reasonable. Williams, 436 F.3d at 708. Unlike Benson, many of his co-defendants accepted responsibility and pled guilty, which resulted in sentencing departures for lower sentences. Since this court is not concerned with sentences of co-defendants, but only those of defendants with similar backgrounds on a national level, see Simmons, 501 F.3d at 623, Benson's argument that Shank received a lower sentence does not render his sentence unreasonable. Further, Shank had a less substantial criminal history than he did. As the entirety of the Benson's argument rests on the proposition that his sentence is unreasonable as compared to his co-defendants, his argument must fail. AFFIRMED.