United States v. Irving Seymour
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 760
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Detective Welsh and two colleagues investigated a handgun sale after confidential informant Powell—Defendant's cousin—reported Defendant was seeking to sell a .25 handgun.
- Defendant was chased after exiting the car; detectives observed him reach for his waistband and saw the handgun handle, which led to a takedown.
- A handgun, 2.4 g crack, and five hydrocodone pills were seized from Defendant.
- Defendant was federally charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved for discovery and suppression; suppression hearing followed.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a four-point firearm enhancement and ordered the federal sentence to run consecutive to a state sentence; the district court did not provide reasoning for the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying discovery | Powell impeachable; disclosure needed | Need impeachment and whereabouts information | Affirmed denial of discovery |
| Whether the district court properly suppressed evidence | Arrest supported by probable cause; seizure valid | Search incident to arrest improper absent valid arrest | Evidence suppression denied; seizure valid |
| Whether the four-point firearm enhancement applied | Firearm used in connection with another felony (narcotics) | No connection; fortress theory not applicable | Enhancement reversed; sentence procedurally unreasonable |
| Whether the district court properly addressed consecutive state sentence | State sentence consecutive to federal sentence | Ohio law issue; district court should consider variance | Remanded for resentencing; no preclusion on reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shields, 664 F.3d 1040 (6th Cir. 2011) (fortress theory not shown for small drug quantities; burden on government)
- Angel v. United States, 576 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2009) (fortress theory discussed in §2K2.1 context)
- Hardin v. United States, 248 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2001) (proximate to drug offense; fortress theory application limits)
- Taylor v. United States, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) determinations)
- United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2008) (treatment of suppression findings on appeal)