United States v. Fred Williams
20-6161
| 6th Cir. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Williams, a convicted felon, was observed in a Honda with a loaded, stolen Smith & Wesson .40 and a clear bag containing 114.9 grams of marijuana nearby.
- Williams admitted exchanging about 3 grams of marijuana for the gun earlier that day and said he bought the gun for "protection."
- A PSR recommended two Guidelines enhancements: +4 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm possessed "in connection with" another felony—here, marijuana distribution) and +2 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) (firearm was stolen).
- The district court applied both enhancements, calculated an advisory range (capped by statute), and imposed a downward variance to 108 months.
- Williams appealed, arguing (1) the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement lacked proof of "another felony" and nexus, and (2) the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement requires proof of knowledge the gun was stolen and the court failed to recognize its authority to reject that Guideline on policy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies (firearm "in connection with" another felony) | He possessed marijuana only for personal use; no intent to deliver and no nexus between gun and drug activity | He possessed a felony quantity (114.9 g) and admitted a drug-for-gun exchange; gun and drugs were colocated and gun was accessible/used | Affirmed. Court found sufficient evidence of intent to distribute and a nexus; no clear error in applying enhancement |
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) requires knowledge the gun was stolen and whether the court erred by not rejecting the Guideline on policy grounds | Enhancement requires proof of knowledge; court failed to acknowledge its authority to reject the Guideline on policy grounds | Circuit precedent treats the enhancement as strict liability; district court correctly applied precedent and was not required to state its power to reject the Guideline for policy reasons | Affirmed. Enhancement applied under controlling precedent; no indication the court misunderstood its authority to vary or reject Guidelines on policy grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mukes, 980 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2020) (discusses § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) application)
- United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2001) (requires nexus between firearm and other felony)
- United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011) (gives deference to district court’s connection finding)
- United States v. Palos, 978 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2020) (rejects knowledge requirement for stolen-firearm enhancement)
- United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (discusses district court’s authority regarding Guidelines)
- United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court need not explicitly state power to reject Guidelines on policy grounds)