Court Opinion

ID: 9407822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 15:01:30.729251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.349411
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0308n.06

                                           No. 22-1974

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                   FILED
                                                                                  Jul 10, 2023
                                                  )                          DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                  )
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                       )
                                                  )            ON APPEAL FROM THE
 v.                                               )            UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                  )            COURT FOR THE WESTERN
 ZACHARY GROSSER,                                 )            DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
        Defendant-Appellant.                      )
                                                  )                                    OPINION
                                                  )

Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

       CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Zachary Grosser pleaded guilty to engaging in the

business of manufacturing and dealing firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(D), and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a), and to possession of a firearm

not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of 26 U.S.C.

§ 5861(d), 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a), 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a)(3) and (c), and 26 U.S.C. § 5871. The

district court sentenced Grosser to 144 months’ imprisonment. Grosser appeals, arguing that the

district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B),

which penalizes the use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. For

the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

                                        BACKGROUND

                                      Factual Background

       On June 7, 2020, law enforcement officers seized a privately made firearm without a serial

number and were informed that Zachary Grosser supplied the firearm. On September 2, 2020, a

confidential source informed investigators that Grosser traded firearms for methamphetamine.

Further, the confidential source stated that Grosser purchased firearm parts without serial numbers

from the internet and used a 3D printer to complete and assemble the firearms.

       Law enforcement officers conducted several “trash pull” investigations at Grosser’s known

address.   In addition to yielding evidence relevant to illicit firearm manufacturing, the

investigations revealed evidence relevant to growing marijuana. During a trash pull on January

13, 2021, officers discovered “handwritten notes containing several items related to soil additives

for growing plants,” “two plastic bags containing marijuana residue,” “numerous disposable cups

with soil residue, coffee filters with marijuana residue, dried marijuana leaves, four empty butane

bottles, approximately 50 garden stakes with names such as ‘Blk Cherry,’ ‘Bruce Banner,’ and

‘Gorilla F---’ written on them.” (Presentence Investigation Report, R. 60, Page ID #284). During

a trash pull on June 2, 2021, officers discovered “marijuana stems and seeds.” (Id.). During a

trash pull on August 3, 2021, officers discovered a “large quantity of marijuana cuttings consistent

with growing marijuana,” “[n]umerous marijuana plant stems and roots,” “[t]wo empty bags of

potting mix[,] two empty bottles of Fox Farm liquid plant food/fertilizer,” “[p]ackaging for a

pruner[,] numerous paper cups containing soil and marijuana residue[,] and multiple pairs of latex

gloves.” (Id., Page ID #285).

       On August 12, 2021, officers executed a search warrant at Grosser’s address. Investigators

recovered, among other evidence, three small marijuana plants located in the basement and eleven

                                                -2-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

large marijuana plants located outside. During the search, Grosser “participated in a post-

Mirandized interview with investigators” wherein Grosser “admitted to distributing marijuana

from 2008 until approximately October 2020.” (Id., Page ID #286–87). Grosser admitted to

distributing approximately four pounds of marijuana for $80 per ounce from October 2019 to

October 2020. Grosser stated that he had stopped selling marijuana, but admitted that the

marijuana discovered in the residence and on the property belonged to him.

                                     Procedural Background

         On December 7, 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Grosser on four counts: (1) engaging

in the business of manufacturing and dealing firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(a)(1)(A), 924(a)(1)(D), and 921(a); (2) possession of a firearm not registered in the

National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5841(a),

5845(a)(3) and (c), 5871; (3) possession of a firearm under the National Firearms Act not identified

by a serial number, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(i), 5841(a), 5845(a)(3) and (c), 5871;

(4) possession of a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B), and 921(a).

         In June 2022, Grosser pleaded guilty to the first two counts of the indictment pursuant to a

written plea agreement. In the plea agreement, Grosser agreed and stipulated to the following

facts:

         From summer 2018 through August 18, 2021, Defendant operated a business
         manufacturing and dealing firearms, including “ghost guns,” without a license,
         despite knowing his conduct was illegal. Defendant’s base of operations was a
         workshop in the basement of his home in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Defendant
         made and sold at least two dozen firearms, including pistols, shotguns, and rifles.
         He made and sold at least 10 rifles without serial numbers, and dealt 15–24 firearms
         to people he believed were legally forbidden to possess them. The defendant also
         knowingly possessed additional firearms in connection with his illegal business,
         some of which he manufactured, and all of which enforcement seized from his

                                                 -3-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

       residence on August 18, 2021. Defendant admitted that he knew he could not
       legally sell the firearms he built, but that he did so anyway.

       Defendant also manufactured and possessed firearms for himself, including a rifle
       with a barrel measuring less than 16 inches in length—namely, a 9mm homemade
       “ghost gun” rifle, with a barrel of approximately 9 inches in length, purple in color,
       bearing no serial number. The defendant stored and displayed the rifle by mounting
       it to the wall of his workshop, and knew the rifle had a shortened barrel and no
       serial number. The rifle was not registered to the defendant in the National
       Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and was in operating condition when
       Defendant knowingly possessed it.

(Plea Agreement, R. 53, Page ID #199–200).

       The presentence investigation report assessed a four-point enhancement for the use or

possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because Grosser’s firearm offenses occurred during a concurrent time frame and

in the same location as Grosser’s admitted conduct of distributing marijuana. Grosser objected to

the application of the enhancement.

       At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Grosser’s objection and applied the

enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The district court relied on the following facts:

   •   Grosser “admitted that he was distributing marijuana from 2008 until October 2020,” and

       “summer of 2018 to August 18, 2021, is the time period in which Mr. Grosser pled guilty

       to engaging in business of manufacturing and dealing firearms without a license,” yielding

       “a plus two year overlap” during which Grosser was “selling and distributing guns and

       distributing marijuana.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 78, Page ID #405–06).

   •   Grosser admitted “that he had sold in that time frame, which is 2018 to 2020, four pounds

       of marijuana at $80 an ounce.” (Id., Page ID #406).

   •   Grosser “admits that the marijuana on the property and in the residence belonged to him,”

       including “three plants, small plants in the basement, and 11 plants in the backyard.” (Id.).

                                                -4-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

   •   During a January 2021 trash search, investigators found a “note regarding soil additives for

       growing plants, two plastic baggies with marijuana residue, numerous disposal cups with

       soil residue, coffee fillers—filters with marijuana residue, dried marijuana leaves,

       50 garden stakes with different labels. . . .” (Id., Page ID #406–07).

   •   During a June 2021 trash search, investigators found “marijuana stems and seeds.” (Id.,

       Page ID #407).

   •   During an August 2021 trash search, investigators found “a large quantity of marijuana

       cuttings consistent with growing marijuana, numerous plant stems and roots of marijuana,

       two empty bags of potting mix, two empty bottles of a farm liquid plant fertilizer,

       packaging for a pruner, numerous cups containing soil and marijuana residue.” (Id.).

       Based on these facts, the district court concluded that Grosser was engaged in the “active

distribution of marijuana” and therefore engaged in drug trafficking. (Id., Page ID #406–407).

Accordingly, based on the overlap in time between Grosser’s firearm offenses and drug trafficking

activity, the district court held that the enhancement applied to Grosser.

       Having applied the enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the district court calculated

that Grosser had a total offense level of 32 and a criminal history category of II, yielding a

sentencing guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced

Grosser to 144 months’ imprisonment. Grosser timely appealed.

                                          DISCUSSION

       On appeal, Grosser challenges the district court’s application of the four-point

enhancement for possessing a firearm “in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).    We review a district court’s sentence for procedural and substantive

reasonableness, applying the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

                                                -5-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

(2007). Our review of procedural reasonableness includes determining whether the district court

properly calculated a defendant's Guidelines range. See id. In the specific context of the

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement, “we review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error and accord ‘due deference’ to the district court’s determination that the firearm was used or

possessed ‘in connection with’ the other felony, thus warranting the application of the . . .

enhancement.” United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011). Applying this standard

of review, we conclude that the record supports applying the enhancement.

       The 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies to defendants who “used or possessed any

firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm . . .

with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with

another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The application notes to 2K2.1 specify that

the four-point enhancement should apply “if the firearm . . . facilitated, or had the potential of

facilitating, another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. 14(A). The government bears the

burden of establishing the factors supporting this enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.

United States v. Mukes, 980 F.3d 526, 533 (6th Cir. 2020).

       “[T]he government must prove that there was a nexus between the firearms and the other

felony offense.” United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499, 503 (6th Cir. 2001). One way in which

the government may “demonstrate[e] this nexus is through the fortress theory, ‘which applies

where a defendant has used a firearm to protect the drugs, facilitate a drug transaction, or embolden

himself while participating in felonious conduct.’” United States v. Shields, 664 F.3d 1040, 1044

(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 788 (6th Cir. 2006)). When the

other felony offense is drug trafficking, close proximity between the firearm and the drugs can be

sufficient to apply the enhancement. Id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. 14(B) (explaining that in

                                                 -6-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

the case of drug trafficking, the enhancement applies if the firearm was “found in close proximity

to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia”). When a firearm is used or

possessed in connection with drug trafficking, the enhancement “is warranted because the presence

of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt.

14(B); but see United States v. Hardin, 248 F.3d 489, 496 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that “proof that

narcotics and firearms were present in the same residence, or even in the same room” does not

automatically trigger the enhancement).

       The district court applied the enhancement to Grosser based on the fortress theory,

reasoning that Grosser was engaged in the drug trafficking of marijuana and that the firearms were

in close proximity to Grosser’s marijuana operation. The district court identified the factual basis

for its ruling, as established through Grosser’s admissions to investigators, Grosser’s stipulation

in the plea agreement, and facts in the presentence investigation report. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(i)(3)(A) (at sentencing, the district court “may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence

report as a finding of fact”). This factual basis included the overlapping time between Grosser’s

firearm offenses and his admitted distribution of marijuana (summer 2018 to October 2020) and

the officers’ discovery of marijuana plants at Grosser’s residence, including in the basement, which

was the “base of operations” for Grosser’s firearm offenses. The factual basis also included the

three trash pulls in 2021, which yielded evidence of marijuana growing at Grosser’s residence.

       Given this factual basis, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that a

preponderance of the evidence supported the application of the enhancement. Grosser’s arguments

to the contrary on appeal are unpersuasive.

                                                -7-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

       First, Grosser argues that he possessed only a small quantity of drugs. However, Grosser

admitted to selling four pounds of marijuana over a year and the trash pulls yielded evidence of

marijuana growing—these facts provide a sufficient basis to support the district court’s finding

that Grosser was engaged in drug trafficking. Grosser next argues that there was insufficient

evidence of proximity of the firearms to the marijuana. However, investigators found marijuana

plants in the basement of Grosser’s residence, which is where Grosser’s workshop and “base of

operations” for his illicit firearm manufacturing was located. The trash pulls yielded evidence of

marijuana growing at the same residence from which Grosser was manufacturing and dealing

firearms, and during the same time frame. These facts provide a sufficient basis for the district

court’s finding that the firearms were in close proximity to the drugs.

       Finally, Grosser argues that any proximity of firearms and marijuana was “merely

coincidental.”   “[P]roximity that is merely coincidental is not enough for application of

§ 2k2.1(b)(6) when a defendant merely possessed drugs.” Shields, 664 F.3d at 1045. However,

“close proximity between a firearm and drugs will suffice to justify the enhancement when an

offender is engaged in drug trafficking.” Id. In this case, the district court did not err in

determining that Grosser was engaged in drug trafficking and that the drugs were in close

proximity to the firearms. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that there was a

nexus between firearms and the other felony offense.

       We therefore affirm the application of the four-point enhancement of § 2k2.1(b)(6), and

hold that Grosser’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.          In addition to his procedural

reasonableness challenge, Grosser purports to challenge his sentence on the additional ground that

it was substantively unreasonable. However, Grosser does not develop this issue on appeal, and

has therefore abandoned it. See United States v. Hendrickson, 822 F.3d 812, 829 n.10 (6th Cir.

                                                -8-
No. 22-1974, United States v. Grosser

2016) (“A party may not raise an issue on appeal by ‘mention[ing it] . . . in the most skeletal way,

leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.’”).

                                            CONCLUSION

        For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

                                                   -9-