United States v. Derrick Ingram, 40 F.4th 791

Police stopped a car leaving a known drug-trafficking area; passenger Derrick Ingram fled clutching his waistband.
Officers chased, Tased him, observed and recovered a loaded Stoeger .40-caliber handgun; Ingram reached for the gun as officers closed in.
A search of the vehicle produced Ingram’s ID, 1.47 g cocaine and 0.85 g methamphetamine; Ingram admitted the drugs were his and pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
At sentencing the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm "in connection with" another felony), treating the relevant felony as drug possession, producing a 46–57 month Guidelines range.
The court imposed an upward variance to 72 months, citing Ingram’s dangerous conduct (reaching for the gun after being Tased) and an extensive criminal history; Ingram appealed the enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the variance.

Issue	Ingram's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies (firearm "in connection with" felony drug possession)	Gun was for personal protection; mere co-possession is insufficient	Firearm facilitated (or had potential to facilitate) public drug possession; he fled with the gun from a drug area	Affirmed — district court’s nexus finding was not clearly erroneous; enhancement proper
Whether any Guidelines error was harmless	Any error would not affect the sentence or the §3553(a) analysis	Govt offered harmlessness as backup	Not resolved as harmless — judge’s boilerplate post-hearing statement was insufficient to show the Guidelines issue didn’t matter
Whether the upward variance (72 months) was substantively reasonable	Variance creates disparity; dangerous conduct already accounted for by §3C1.2	Reaching for a gun after being Tased plus lengthy drug/gun criminal history shows heightened need for deterrence and protection; sentence individualized	Affirmed — variance was particularized to Ingram’s conduct and history and therefore reasonable

United States v. Slone, 990 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2021) (preponderance standard for connecting firearm to another felony)
United States v. LePage, 477 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2007) (nexus requires firearm to have some purpose or effect in relation to the other felony)
United States v. Briggs, 919 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2019) (mere spatial proximity of guns and drugs insufficient without nexus findings)
United States v. Haynes, 179 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1999) (coincidental presence of a firearm is insufficient for enhancement)
United States v. Jarvis, 814 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2016) (enhancement applied where gun and heroin found together in pocket)
United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2009) (enhancement applied where defendant carried a gun and cocaine into a dangerous area late at night)
United States v. West, 643 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2011) (no enhancement where gun and drugs were in different parts of vehicle with no connecting facts)
United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009) (similar to West — insufficient connection where facts did not link gun and drugs)
United States v. Marks, 864 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2017) (when a judge explains a Guidelines error didn’t matter, the error may be harmless)
United States v. Asbury, 27 F.4th 576 (7th Cir. 2022) (post‑hoc boilerplate statements are ordinarily insufficient to show harmlessness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing decisions)