Opinion ID: 598526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defendant davis' possession of a firearm during the

Text: COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE 26 Davis also claims that the determination that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime was clearly erroneous. The Sentencing Guidelines, § 1B1.3(a)(1), explains that the defendant may be held accountable for any acts or omissions that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense, or that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense. The guidelines also provide that a firearm adjustment should be applied if a weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. Application Note 3 to § 2D1.1 (1991). 27 We addressed a similar question in United States v. Duncan, 918 F.2d 647 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2055 (1991), where we decided that an [a]cquittal on a firearms carrying charge leaves ample room for a district court to find by the preponderance of the evidence that the weapon was possessed during the drug offense. Id. at 652. Unlike Duncan, the gun charges against Nelson were dismissed and were not associated with the drug offenses. 28 In United States v. Brown, 946 F.2d 1191, 1199 (6th Cir.1991), we determined that merely because the district court believed that the defendant was carrying a gun in count one for which he was acquitted, that belief does not support the finding that the defendant possessed a gun in the drug transaction in count three. This court explained further that 29 While the sentencing judge may have assumed that because [the defendant] carried a firearm earlier on November 14 he also carried one later that day, the only basis for such an assumption is conjecture, and conjecture is not enough to support an enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1). 30 Id. 31 The district court, in the case at hand, determined that 32 The statements by Mr. Davis about this gun were clearly against his interest and that certainly adds to their credibility. 33 In fact, as a result of these admissions on his part, he was assessed a two level enhancement for possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug offense and the Court is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that, in fact, Mr. Nelson did give this gun to Mr. Davis for his use in protecting himself and the drugs and money and that Mr. Nelson was aware that the gun was being so used, so it was foreseeable 34