United States v. Lashaun Bolton
858 F.3d 905
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Lashaun Bolton pleaded guilty to a 2012–2013 marijuana distribution conspiracy and later to a separate 2015 cocaine distribution conspiracy; the two cases were consolidated for sentencing.
- In December 2014, officers searched Appellant’s bedroom and found a 12‑gauge shotgun (reported stolen), a .22‑250 rifle, ammunition, ~$912 cash, and ~400 g marijuana; the weapons and drugs were discovered while Appellant was released on bond for the marijuana case.
- While on pretrial release for the marijuana charges, Appellant was arrested in April 2015 for cocaine distribution, surrendered after a warrant, cooperated with law enforcement, and later pled guilty to the cocaine conspiracy.
- The PSR grouped the offenses, set a base offense level (drug quantity), added +2 for a firearm enhancement and +2 for maintaining premises for distribution, declined an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction, and calculated offense level 34 (later adjusted to 30 after some objections), Guideline range 97–121 months.
- At sentencing the district court (1) applied the §2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement, rejecting testimony the guns were for hunting; (2) denied a §5C1.2 safety‑valve reduction; (3) denied an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction under §3E1.1 because Appellant resumed drug activity after arrest; and (4) imposed an upward variance to 161 months total (40 months above the Guideline range).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) | Guns were for hunting; discovery was outside conspiracy timeframe so nexus to drug offense is clearly improbable | Weapons found with cash and drugs in bedroom show connection; Gov met preponderance burden | Affirmed: enhancement proper—guns found with cash/drugs created sufficient nexus and district court credibility findings were not clearly erroneous (Manigan/Apple framework applied) |
| Eligibility for safety‑valve §5C1.2(a)(2) (no firearm in connection) | Even if enhancement applied under its higher standard, Appellant met preponderance standard showing no connection and so should get safety‑valve | Weapon evidence defeats preponderance showing; safety‑valve inapplicable | Affirmed: even if court erred by conflating standards, any error was harmless because Appellant failed to prove by preponderance that weapons were unconnected |
| Acceptance of responsibility reduction §3E1.1 | Voluntary surrender, cooperation, guilty pleas and debriefings show acceptance and warrant a 2‑level reduction | Appellant resumed criminal activity while on bond and after arrest, undermining clear acceptance | Affirmed: denial proper—resumption of drug distribution after arrest/bond meant Appellant did not clearly accept responsibility |
| Substantive reasonableness of upward variance under §3553(a) | 40‑month upward variance is excessive given Guideline range, minimal criminal history, and guilty pleas | Variance justified by need for deterrence, protection of public, and Appellant’s repeated reoffending while on release | Affirmed: variance reasonable—district court explained reliance on §3553(a) factors and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Manigan v. United States, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir.) (explains firearm enhancement nexus and burden)
- Apple v. United States, 962 F.2d 335 (4th Cir.) (weapon found where conspiracy was carried out can link gun to conspiracy)
- Gomez‑Jimenez v. United States, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (harmless‑error test for procedural sentencing errors)
- Dugger v. United States, 485 F.3d 236 (4th Cir.) (standards for acceptance of responsibility)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of variances and reasonableness review framework)
- Hernandez‑Villanueva v. United States, 473 F.3d 118 (4th Cir.) (review of substantive reasonableness for upward variances)