United States v. Charles Warfield
20-5621
| 6th Cir. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Warfield was convicted of (1) conspiring to distribute 50+ grams of methamphetamine and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm; he appealed only the felon-in-possession conviction and a two-level firearm sentencing enhancement.
- During the conspiracy period, Warfield sent a Facebook message showing a Llama .45 pistol and offering it for methamphetamine; his supplier, Collinsworth, later saw the same gun in Warfield’s truck but only "glanced at" it; the gun was never recovered.
- Warfield stipulated that he knew he was a felon and that Llama 1911 .45 firearms were manufactured outside Kentucky (satisfying the interstate-commerce element).
- The jury convicted on both counts; the district court denied acquittal and applied a two-level USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon during the drug offense, raising Warfield’s total offense level from 28 to 30.
- With a Category V criminal history, Warfield received a 170-month sentence (within the enhanced 151–188 month Guidelines range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §922(g)(1) conviction (possession/existence) | Warfield: Collinsworth only glanced at the gun, could not confirm it was real or the same as the photo, and the firearm was never recovered. | Government: Facebook messages + Collinsworth’s observation and their supplier-dealer relationship suffice as substantial circumstantial evidence of possession and existence. | Court: Affirmed — evidence, viewed favorably to prosecution, was sufficient; credibility is for the jury. |
| Interstate-commerce element for §922(g)(1) | Warfield: challenged sufficiency. | Government: Warfield stipulated Llama 1911 .45s are manufactured outside Kentucky; witness confirmed foreign manufacture. | Court: Affirmed — stipulation and testimony satisfy interstate-commerce element. |
| Procedural reasonableness: two-level USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement | Warfield: Enhancement is improper because it rests on a "phantom" firearm. | Government: By preponderance, Warfield actually/constructively possessed the weapon during the conspiracy; presence creates a presumption the weapon was connected to the offense, shifting burden to defendant to show connection was "clearly improbable." | Court: Affirmed — district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; enhancement permissible because the gun was used (or offered) as currency and connection was not clearly improbable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ward, 957 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2020) (elements the government must prove for a §922(g)(1) conviction)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (circumstantial evidence may alone support a verdict)
- United States v. Ayoub, [citation="701 F. App'x 427"] (6th Cir. 2017) (preponderance standard for §2D1.1(b)(1) and presumption that a present weapon is connected to the offense)
- United States v. Pryor, 842 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2016) (clear-error review of district court’s factual findings on enhancements)
- United States v. Cobb, [citation="432 F. App'x 578"] (6th Cir. 2011) (§2D1.1(b)(1) may apply where weapon serves as quid pro quo in a drug transaction)
- United States v. Gibson, 135 F.3d 1124 (6th Cir. 1998) ("connected" means linked for §2D1.1(b)(1) purposes)