United States v. James King
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22865
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- King pleaded guilty to one-count conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥100 grams of heroin; indictment and factual resume recited conspiracy lasting Jan 2012–Feb 11, 2013.
- Police arrested King at a Fairlane Avenue residence on Feb 12, 2013; search recovered a loaded .45 handgun (obliterated serial number) in the master bedroom, empty .45 box, empty clear capsules in the master bedroom, 13 heroin capsules in the laundry room, and other drug paraphernalia.
- PSR recommended a two-level § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a firearm; PSR Addendum linked the firearm spatially/temporally to drug activity and concluded King continued distribution through Feb 2013.
- King objected: argued the home was his wife’s, the gun was in her nightstand and not his, he ceased participating in the conspiracy in July 2012, the paraphernalia was for personal use, and safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) should apply.
- District court overruled objections (adopting PSR Addendum reasons), applied the two-level firearm enhancement, denied the safety valve, and imposed the 60-month mandatory-minimum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court comply with Rule 32(i)(3)(B)/Due Process by ruling on PSR objections? | Government: district court adopted PSR Addendum and thus ruled on objections. | King: court failed to resolve his objections adequately. | Court held district court satisfied Rule 32(i)(3)(B) by overruling objections via PSR Addendum. |
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) two-level firearm enhancement applies (possession linked temporally/spatially to offense)? | Government: preponderance of evidence shows temporal and spatial nexus (dates, arrest location, weapons & paraphernalia together). | King: gun belonged to his wife, found in her nightstand; he had ceased conspiracy involvement by July 2012; paraphernalia was for personal use. | Court held district court did not clearly err: record plausibly shows temporal/spatial nexus and King failed to show it was clearly improbable the gun was connected to the offense. |
| Whether the district court erred in declining safety-valve relief under § 3553(f) based on judge-found fact? | King: Alleyne requires a jury to find facts that affect mandatory minimums; judge-found possession of a firearm denied safety valve — unconstitutional. | Government: safety valve removes a mandatory minimum and Alleyne applies to facts that increase mandatory minimums, not to facts that deny a mitigating provision; circuits permit judicial factfinding for safety-valve eligibility. | Court held Alleyne is inapplicable; judicial factfinding that makes safety valve unavailable is not unconstitutional. |
| Standard of review for firearm-enhancement factual findings? | King (citing Zapata-Lara): urged de novo review. | Government: clear-error review applies to factual findings; Zapata-Lara distinguishable. | Court held clear-error review applies to § 2D1.1(b)(1) factual findings here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard and temporal/spatial nexus test for firearm enhancement)
- United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2010) (discussing when de novo review may apply where district court made no relevant factual findings)
- United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 1999) (adopting PSR can satisfy Rule 32(i)(3)(B) obligation)
- United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Salado, 339 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2003) (weapon must be found in same location as drugs/paraphernalia or transaction site)
- United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1993) (mere joint control over premises insufficient alone to establish constructive possession)
- United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1995) (temporal link may be shown via related relevant conduct within common scheme)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000) (preservation and de novo review of constitutional sentencing challenges)