United States v. Chauncey Brockman, 924 F.3d 988

Background

Police stopped Brockman during a homicide investigation and found a stolen .40-caliber handgun on his person and a duffel bag containing an extended magazine and ~243.5 grams of marijuana packaged in 40 small clear bags; additional marijuana was in his pocket.
Brockman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); the PSR recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with a felony drug-trafficking offense.
Brockman objected to the enhancement (claimed personal-use marijuana) and filed multiple post-plea pro se motions, including to withdraw his plea and replace counsel; most were denied as meritless.
At sentencing the court credited Brockman with a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) but denied the government’s motion (and declined to sua sponte grant) the third-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b).
The district court applied the four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement based on quantity, packaging, Brockman’s admissions about buying/selling five ounces, and proximity of the firearm to the drugs, and sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Brockman’s Argument	Government’s/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies (firearm connected with felony drug trafficking)	Brockman: amount and packaging consistent with personal use; no scales, cash, or prior trafficking convictions	Gov./Court: quantity, packaging, firearm, and Brockman’s admission about buying/selling ounces support intent to distribute	Held: Enhancement affirmed — district court not clearly erroneous
Whether the court should have awarded the § 3E1.1(b) third-level reduction despite no government motion	Brockman: Court could grant third level because his conduct allowed efficient allocation of resources; objections alone don’t justify withholding motion	Government: Withholding motion justified by Brockman’s post-plea motions and denial of relevant conduct, which required extra time and expense	Held: Denial affirmed — government permissibly withheld § 3E1.1(b) motion; two-level § 3E1.1(a) credit was generous

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Holm, 745 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2014) (preponderance standard for proving uncharged felony offense in Guidelines context)
United States v. Jordan, 877 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2017) (denial of acceptance credit when defendant’s conduct wastes resources)
United States v. Gaye, 902 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2018) (court’s generous two-level reduction does not compel government to move for third level)
United States v. Thompson, 881 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2018) (factors showing intent to distribute include quantity, paraphernalia, cash, firearm)
United States v. Fetters, 698 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2012) (same)
United States v. Finch, 630 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2011) (packaging indicates intent to distribute)
United States v. Nolen, 536 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2008) (marijuana amount exceeding personal-use levels supports distribution inference)
United States v. Ironi, 525 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2008) (giving drugs to others without money still constitutes distribution)
United States v. Moore, 683 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2012) (appellate review standard for acceptance-of-responsibility findings)
United States v. Searcy, 233 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (district court’s superior position to assess acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Fischer, 551 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (clear-error standard explained)
United States v. Castillo, 779 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2015) (government may refuse § 3E1.1(b) motion based on interests identified in § 3E1.1)
United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2014) (attempt to withdraw plea can show lack of acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Bastian, 603 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2010) (same)
United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2017) (defendant bears burden to prove entitlement to acceptance reduction)