United States v. Jermaine Stamps, 983 F.3d 945

Stamps pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (50+ grams), carrying a 60‑month statutory minimum unless he qualified for the safety‑valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
Law enforcement observed five public sales to an informant, executed a search of Stamps’s apartment, and found two >25g methamphetamine bags and distribution paraphernalia in one room and a loaded 9mm Glock and Stamps’s wallet/cash in his bedroom.
Stamps admitted long‑term drug sales but said he purchased the gun for self‑defense after wrongful implication in a 2017 murder and community threats; he kept drugs and gun in different rooms and conducted deals outside the home.
The PSR recommended a two‑level § 2D1.1(b)(1) weapon enhancement and concluded it was “not clearly improbable” the firearm was connected to the offense, so no safety‑valve.
At sentencing the district court applied the higher “clearly improbable” standard to deny safety‑valve relief (and imposed the 60‑month mandatory minimum), rather than separately analyzing the lower preponderance standard required for safety‑valve eligibility.
The government conceded the district court erred on appeal; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded because the court applied the wrong legal standard and the error was not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Correct burden to establish safety‑valve ineligibility (possession “in connection with” offense)	Stamps: must prove by a preponderance that the gun was not connected; thus safety‑valve may apply	Government: district court’s finding that it was not "clearly improbable" the gun was connected suffices to deny safety‑valve	Court: defendant need only a preponderance to show no connection for safety‑valve; district court mistakenly applied the higher "clearly improbable" standard and must reconsider
Whether the district court's error was harmless	Stamps: error affected sentence because court indicated it might impose lower sentence but for statute	Government: facts (type of gun, co‑location in apartment) show result would be same	Court: error was not harmless; remanded for resentencing under correct standard

United States v. Fincher, 929 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2019) (distinguishes burdens: preponderance for safety‑valve, "clearly improbable" for §2D1.1(b)(1) challenge)
United States v. Collins, 924 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for statutory and Guidelines interpretation)
United States v. Clark, 906 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2018) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors)
United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009) (harmless‑error and substantial‑rights framework)
United States v. Anderson, 517 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2008) (error harmless if it did not affect sentence selection)
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (precedent on harmless error affecting sentencing)