Court Opinion

ID: 9497448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:51:31.305595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:11.961597
License: Public Domain

CLAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s disposition but not with all of its reasoning on the issue of whether Defendant possessed a firearm “in furtherance of’ a drug trafficking crime, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). This issue is closer than the majority suggests.
The majority states that “each of the Mackey factors points to the conclusion that this weapon was possessed in furtherance of the drug offenses.” This is not entirely true. For one, “the time and circumstances under which the firearm was found,” United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir.2001), provide little evidence of any connection between the firearm and drug trafficking. The firearm was not discovered during any drug transaction but, rather, during a police search of the residence. Another factor in Mackey was the proximity of the firearm to the drugs. Id. at 462. In the instant case, the facts are either ambiguous or favor Defendant’s position, inasmuch as the firearm was found in the bedroom and the drugs were in the garage.
There were Mackey factors supporting the connection between the firearm and the drug offense, such as the gun being loaded, illegally possessed, and in a very easily accessible location. Based upon these factors it would not be irrational for a factfinder to sustain a conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A). But this is a close issue, and any small variation in the facts, diminishing the connection between the gun and the drugs, might have been enough to render the evidence insufficient to support the conviction. Under very similar facts, in United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir.1994), the Tenth Circuit ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction under § 924(c), where a police search of a house found drugs in a package on top of a refrigerator in the kitchen and a loaded firearm on the top shelf of a closet in an upstairs bedroom. Significantly, in Hall the charges were under the “during and in relation to” clause of § 924(c)(1)(A), which demands less evidence of a connection to the drug trafficking offense than is required by the “in furtherance of’ clause that was charged in the instant case. Mackey, 265 F.3d at 462.
The majority presents this issue as straightforward, but it is not. There is *1032sufficient evidence to support a conviction, but only by a close margin.