United States v. Dale White, 701 F. App'x 517

Defendant Dale White, a admitted drug user (a § 922(g)(3) prohibited person), accidentally discharged a .22 rifle on Jan. 2, 2016, killing his father in their shared Nashua, Iowa home.
Officers executed two search warrants and recovered 49 firearms from the residence (8 handguns, 21 rifles, 20 shotguns) and drug paraphernalia; White’s urine tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.
The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) (base level 20) because the offense involved a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine, and § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) (+6 levels) because 25–99 firearms were involved; after acceptance-of-responsibility credits, total offense level was 23 (Guidelines range 46–57 months).
White objected: (1) the large-capacity magazine was not in “close proximity” to the discharged rifle (magazine was upstairs; rifle was in the living room), so § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) should not apply; and (2) he was responsible for only seven firearms (the rifle + six in his bedroom), not 25+, so the § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) enhancement was improper.
The district court found the magazine and rifle in close proximity for § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) purposes and, adopting a conservative view, concluded White actually or constructively possessed at least 26 firearms found in his bedroom and common areas, applying the +6 enhancement; it imposed a 47-month sentence.

Issue	White's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) base offense level applies because the large-capacity magazine was in “close proximity” to the semiautomatic rifle	The magazine (upstairs in White’s bedroom) was not in close proximity to the rifle (living room), so the enhancement should not apply	The magazine was sufficiently close to the firearm for the guideline to apply; White was a prohibited person and the magazine was accessible	No plain error; circuit declined to find the ruling “clear or obvious” error and left the close-proximity issue for a preserved case
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) +6 enhancement applies based on number of firearms (25–99)	White conceded possession of 7 firearms but argued he lacked dominion over common-area firearms and thus did not constructively possess the additional 19	White had knowledge of the common-area firearms, lived in the residence for years, had unrestricted access to common areas, and thus had dominion and constructive possession	Affirmed: factual finding of constructive possession of at least 25 firearms not clearly erroneous

United States v. Vaughn, 519 F.3d 802 (plain-error review requires clear or obvious error)
United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (plain-error standards)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error framework)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (definition of plain error)
United States v. Watson, 843 F.3d 335 (no plain error where issue unsettled)
United States v. Vega, 720 F.3d 1002 (constructive, sole or joint possession standard)
United States v. Ways, 832 F.3d 887 (constructive possession requires knowledge and dominion)
United States v. Davis, 449 F.3d 842 (firearms seized at defendant’s residence supports constructive possession)