Court Opinion

ID: 9495551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:05:29.525803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:04.819616
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The district court added thirty months to the appellant’s sentence on the basis that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense. The evidence established that Harris had the firearm several months before his drug sales, but not during them. Therefore, I cannot agree that the weapon was connected to the offense and I dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion that affirms the sentence enhancement.
As the majority correctly notes, a two-level enhancement for drug distribution crimes applies when “a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” by the defendant. USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The adjustment is appropriate “if the weapon is present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” Id., comment. (n.3). Thus, the guideline clearly requires that before the enhancement is imposed, the government must establish that a weapon is at least present.
This circuit has consistently held that in order for § 2D1.1(b)(1) to apply, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a dangerous weapon was present when the crimes ioere committed, and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon had some nexus with the criminal activity. See United States v. Shields, 44 F.3d 673, 674 (8th Cir.1995) (holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendant’s home thirty-seven days after last known drug sale occurred). See also United States v. Bost, 968 F.2d 729, 731-33 (8th Cir.1992) (holding enhancement not appropriate because of two and one-half month lapse between the criminal activity and the discovery of the weapons, and no evidence that weapons were present when defendant committed charged offense).
*1114In this ease, the district court did not find that any weapons present at the time of the charged crime were connected to the offense. Rather, the district court enhanced the appellant’s sentence based on evidence that the appellant had possessed a handgun several months earlier. In doing so, the district court effectively disregarded Application Note 3 in the § 2D1 Official Commentary, and chose to interpret “possession” in a way that is counter to the official commentary and this circuit’s case law. Without a firearm actually present at the time of the charged crime, the appellant’s confession to possession of ammunition and the Maxwell testimony that he had seen a firearm seven months prior are irrelevant. At best, the evidence suggests that Harris possessed a handgun at one time, but it does not support the conclusion that Harris was currently in possession of a firearm, or that it was used in connection with criminal activity.8 Unlike United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377 (8th Cir.1990), where a witness observed the defendant in possession of a firearm while conducting a drug transaction, there is no evidence here that any weapons were ever used in connection with drug transactions, bringing this case more squarely in line with the facts of Bost.
The majority’s extension of temporal possession is not supported by law. The best evidence the government provides to support the enhancement is that the appellant owned a gun six or seven months prior to his arrest. The majority constructively extends possession into the past, in direct conflict with Eighth Circuit precedent and the Sentencing Guidelines on their face. The Guidelines were not intended to open the door so wide as to allow any possession of any weapon at any time remotely proximate to a drug offense to be considered when enhancing a defendant’s sentence. There is no evidence Harris ever used the weapon in conjunction with his drug sales. There was no weapon present at the time of his arrest. There is no reason this enhancement should apply to this case.
I do not believe the government has shown that USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) applies. The two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm should not be applied to the appellant’s sentence. I would therefore remand for resentencing.

. The majority points to Count V of the indictment, alleging that Harris was involved in a conspiracy between about 1996 and 1997. The Maxwell testimony states that Harris was in possession of the .45 caliber handgun in the fall of 1996. To my mind, a thirty-month enhancement deserves a more exacting inquiry than vague generalities placing the two events around the same time. Two and one-half years should not simply be tagged onto a sentence because the conspiracy may have overlapped Harris's possession of the firearm.