United States v. Cameron King
21-1189
| 7th Cir. | Apr 8, 2022Background
- King was on probation for a prior felony when police stopped him for running a red light and found a loaded pistol, ~11 grams of cocaine in baggies, a scale, and over $300 in cash.
- King pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- A jury convicted King of possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841) and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- district court sentenced King to 90 months: 30 months (within-Guidelines for the firearm and drug convictions) plus a consecutive 60-month statutory minimum under § 924(c).
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw, identifying and addressing plausible appellate issues; King opposed withdrawal but raised no meritorious claims.
- The Seventh Circuit granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | King’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug distribution | Evidence (baggies, scale, cash, expert testimony) proves intent to distribute | Insufficiency claim on appeal | Rejected — record supports conviction; plain-error standard not met |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) (gun "in relation to" drug crime) | Gun found with drugs and distributor paraphernalia shows relation | Insufficiency claim | Rejected — rational juror could find relation; nearly inescapable when drugs and gun co-located |
| Vagueness challenge to § 924(c) "during and in relation to" language | Statute is clear under Seventh Circuit precedent | Argues language is impermissibly vague | Rejected — Seventh Circuit precedent upholds statute as clear; Supreme Court has not invalidated § 924(c)(1)(A) |
| COVID-trial protocol (face shields) and confrontation/demeanor rights | Face shields allowed jury and defendant to assess witness demeanor while protecting health | Face shields impaired ability to confront and assess witnesses | Rejected — shields permitted; demeanor assessment preserved |
| Sentencing: procedural errors, denial of acceptance reduction, and substantive reasonableness | Guidelines properly calculated; judge considered § 3553(a); denial of § 3E1.1 justified by post-arrest assaults; 60-month § 924(c) minimum consecutive to 30-month term | Offense level incorrect; should get acceptance reduction; overall sentence unreasonable | Rejected — no procedural error; denial of reduction not clearly erroneous; within-Guidelines term presumed reasonable and consecutive statutory minimum required |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (withdrawal of appointed counsel when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Eller, 670 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2012) (§ 924(c) "during and in relation to" language is clear)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B), context for vagueness arguments)
- Stevens v. United States, 380 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2004) (drugs and gun found together support "in relation to")
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970) (government may charge conjunctively and prove disjunctively)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Edwards, 836 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2016) (denial of acceptance reduction when defendant continued offending is not clear error)
- United States v. Patel, 921 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2019) (standards for procedural sentencing error)