United States v. Eller, 670 F.3d 762

Eller was indicted in August 2009 for three counts: manufacturing marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); and unlawful firearm possession by a user of controlled substances (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)).
Eller pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 3; the jury convicted him on Count 2.
The district court sentenced Eller to 60 months for Counts 1 and 3 concurrent, plus 60 months for Count 2 to run consecutively, with three years of supervised release and a $300 assessment.
Police discovered a fortified marijuana grow operation, drugs, scales, and a loaded handgun in Eller’s home, with children present in the residence.
Evidence at trial showed Eller built and ran the operation, kept a loaded firearm near the front door, and had it not locked up or displayed as a hobby piece, suggesting protection of the operation.
Eller challenged the § 924(c) conviction, arguing vagueness, insufficient nexus to the drug activity, and improper expert testimony; the court denied relief and the judgment was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 924(c) is void-for-vagueness as applied	Eller asserts lack of notice and potential arbitrary enforcement.	Eller contends the nexus is vague and requires a higher level of participation.	No plain error; statute clear and intelligible.
Sufficiency of evidence for the 'in furtherance of' nexus	Seymour factors show nexus between firearm and drug operation.	Mere presence of firearm near drugs is insufficient.	Evidence supports conviction; reasonable jury could find nexus.
Admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 704	Agent Jolley testified based on experience and common criminal practices to aid understanding.	Testimony improperly opined on mental state/intent.	District court did not err; testimony proper as it did not usurp mental-state determination.

United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 1998) (plain-error standard for vagueness review)
United States v. Lim, 444 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2006) (vagueness guiding standards)
United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (§ 924(c) vagueness rejected)
United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006) (reaffirmed § 924(c) clarity)
United States v. Camps, 32 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 1994) (interpretation of § 924(c) enforceability)
United States v. Mitten, 592 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2010) (gun can further drug-trafficking operation)
United States v. Seymour, 519 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2008) (Seymour factors for nexus analysis)
United States v. Lipscomb, 14 F.3d 1236 (7th Cir. 1994) (limitations on expert testimony by law enforcement)
United States v. Blount, 502 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2007) (testimony by law enforcement experts acceptable if grounded in experience)
United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2007) (narrowing expert testimony to general practices)
United States v. Sanchez-Galvez, 33 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 1994) (narcotics context and expert testimony)