United States v. Douglas Druger
920 F.3d 567
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2014–2016 law enforcement investigations (including a DEA-authorized wiretap) linked Douglas Druger to methamphetamine trafficking involving co-defendant Robert Reno.
- Druger rented and sub‑leased a bifurcated warehouse; searches in December 2015 and in 2016 of Druger’s residence and related locations recovered drug paraphernalia, drug residue, a total of four firearms (three loaded), $7,000 cash, and 36.02 grams of methamphetamine hidden in plumbing.
- A witness who purchased methamphetamine from Druger testified she continued buying from him before and after the 2015 search and described sales from the premises.
- Text messages recovered referred to selling a “big‑guy” (one pound) and having a “strap” (handgun); expert testimony explained the slang.
- A grand jury returned an indictment charging Druger in multiple counts related to drug distribution and firearms; a jury convicted him on all counts. Druger moved for judgment of acquittal on Counts alleging (1) possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)) and (2) possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); the district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Druger’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking (§ 924(c)) | Insufficient nexus between firearms and drug crime; drugs not found next to guns | Firearms were accessible and found near drug residue, unexplained cash, and corroborating testimony and texts; nexus may be proven circumstantially | Affirmed — jury could infer nexus and use to protect drug proceeds supported § 924(c) conviction |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (§ 841(a)(1)) | 36.02 g was for personal use; no proof of intent to distribute | Quantity, scales, baggies, paraphernalia, firearm, and customer testimony support distribution intent | Affirmed — evidence permitted a reasonable jury to infer intent to distribute |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De La Torre, 907 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence on motion for judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Close, 518 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2008) (§ 924(c) requires a nexus beyond mere simultaneous possession)
- United States v. Goodrich, 739 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2014) (factors for inferring a firearm was used in furtherance of drug trafficking)
- United States v. Johnson, 474 F.3d 515 (8th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence like scales and cash can support nexus; drugs need not be found next to the gun)
- United States v. Edwards, 994 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1993) (use of firearms to protect drug proceeds supports § 924(c) liability)
- United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements required to prove possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Thompson, 881 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2018) (paraphernalia, prior sales, and firearms support inference of distribution intent)
- United States v. Ramos, 852 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 2017) (credibility of accomplice testimony is for the jury absent implausibility)
- United States v. Boyle, 700 F.3d 1138 (8th Cir. 2012) (special verdict finding as to multiple firearms: sufficiency supports upholding conviction if adequate for at least one firearm)