United States v. Andre Van, 427 F. App'x 423

Van was charged by grand jury with drug distribution (counts 1,3-5), possession of a firearm in a drug-trafficking crime (count 2), and felon-in-possession (count 6).
Prior to trial, Van moved to sever count 6 under Rule 8(a); district court denied.
At trial, Yott (an ATF agent) testified via recordings and Van’s statements; Van admitted some drug buys but not others and claimed his nephew conducted some sales.
Yott testified Van carried a firearm during all four drug transactions; a revolver sat on the table during the first buy and Van claimed the gun was not his.
A later traffic stop yielded a seized .38 revolver; witness statements and videotaped interviews with Van were introduced, with Van denying ownership of the gun.
Van was convicted on all counts and sentenced under the career-offender guideline to 360 months; guideline range was 360 months to life.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 8(a) misjoinder—harmless error	Van	Van	Harmless error; no reversible prejudice.
Due-process and Yott as expert witness	Van	Yott described as expert but not formally qualified; instruction adequate.	No due-process violation; instruction and context mitigated risk.
Advisory nature of Guidelines in sentencing	Van	District court understood discretion to vary; advisory status acknowledged.	No procedural error; court considered §3553(a) factors and demonstrated discretion.

Locklear, 631 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2011) (harmless error review for misjoinder suffices when prejudice unlikely)
Miller v. Stovall, 608 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing sua sponte harmless-error review possible)
Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) (limits prejudice from misjoinder with limiting instructions)
Cody, 498 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2007) (curative instructions mitigate misjoinder prejudice)
Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (no need to requalify when qualifications are apparent)