United States v. Lester Barnes
822 F.3d 914
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- March 22, 2013: agents executed a search warrant at Lester Barnes’s trailer after controlled buys of oxycodone by a confidential informant; agents found ~300 pills (many in bottles with Barnes’s name), marked buy money, cash, ammunition, a safe with pills, and seven firearms. Two guns were tucked under corners of the waterbed where Barnes slept and where he sat when agents arrived.
- Barnes was indicted on three counts of distribution (from the controlled buys), one count of possession with intent to distribute the pills found in the trailer (Count 4), one § 924(c) count for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime based on the two guns under the waterbed (Count 5), and one § 922(g)(1) count for being a felon in possession of firearms (Count 6).
- While detained pretrial Barnes made recorded jail calls in September 2013; the court allowed excerpts from two calls that referenced pill distribution to be admitted under Rule 404(b) for intent, with a limiting instruction; other portions were excluded under Rule 403.
- A jury convicted Barnes on all counts. The PSR counted a 1998 state controlled-substance conviction in the Guidelines calculation, raising his base offense level and criminal-history category; the court adopted the PSR and sentenced Barnes to an effective 106 months’ imprisonment (including the consecutive § 924(c) mandatory minimum).
- On appeal Barnes argued (1) insufficient evidence for the § 924(c) conviction because the guns weren’t shown to be strategically accessible to him, (2) the court abused discretion by admitting the jail-call excerpts, and (3) plain error in counting the 1998 conviction for Guidelines because the sentence was administratively suspended/shortened.
Issues
| Issue | Barnes’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) (possession in furtherance) | Guns under mattress were not shown to be strategically accessible given Barnes’s poor health; insufficient nexus to drug crime | Guns were under mattress corners near Barnes, pills, and marked buy money; reasonable jury could infer guns were for defense/deterrence in furtherance of trafficking | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find nexus and strategic placement |
| Admissibility of recorded jail calls (Rule 404(b)) | Calls were not probative of intent re: March offense and risk unfair prejudice; limiting instruction insufficient | Calls showed intent to distribute (admissible for intent), were substantially similar to charged conduct, and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion admitting excerpts for intent; limiting instruction adequate |
| Timing/probative value of post-arrest acts (calls recorded 6 months later) | Subsequent acts rarely probative of prior intent; six months too remote | Calls were made while Barnes was detained on the charged offense and continued distribution activity, so probative of intent | Held probative: sufficiently similar and temporally connected because activity continued while detained |
| Sentencing: counting 1998 state conviction under USSG §4A1.2 | 1998 sentence was effectively suspended/reduced by state release law; only time actually served should count, making conviction too old to count | ‘‘Suspension’’ in Guidelines refers to court-imposed suspension, not administrative release; prior sentence counts | Affirmed: no plain error; prior conviction properly counted under Guidelines (district court did not plainly err) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes using/carrying a firearm and possessing a firearm in furtherance; requires nexus)
- United States v. Sykes, 292 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence—view facts in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001) (requires weapon be strategically located and lists factors relevant to in-furtherance determination)
- United States v. Mack, 729 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (three-part test for admissibility under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2008) (other-acts evidence probative if sufficiently similar and near in time; guidance on intent evidence)
- United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Harris, 237 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2001) (‘‘suspended sentence’’ in Guidelines refers to judicial suspension, not administrative parole/release)