United States v. Matthews
2014 WL 1979873
1st Cir.2014Background
- Matthews convicted on one conspiracy count, three firearm-possession counts, and one marijuana-possession count.
- District court denied acquittal on marijuana charge and denied a § 2K2.1(b)(6) four-level enhancement.
- Evidence showed Weeks purchased a gun for Matthews; Matthews admitted marijuana use and possession.
- Matthews argued § 844(a) requires proving lack of a valid prescription; district court rejected.
- Sentence imposed was 70 months after applying a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with a felony drug offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 844(a) require proving no valid prescription as an element? | Matthews argues lack of prescription is element. | Government need not negate prescription; § 885(a)(1) burden on defendant. | § 844(a) is exempted by § 885(a)(1); defense burden. |
| Court upholds denial of acquittal. | |||
| Whether the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony applies | Matthews contends no 'another felony' proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Government showed Matthews engaged in felony drug trafficking with gun nearby. | Enhancement supported; district court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hooker, 541 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1976) (exemption-bearing burdens under § 885(a)(1))
- United States v. Forbes, 515 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (§844(a) unless clause creates an exemption for the accused)
- United States v. Cannon, 589 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2009) (guidance on § 2K2.1(b)(6) and review standards)
- United States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709 (1st Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard for sentencing enhancements; inference basics)
- United States v. Dávila-Nieves, 670 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (de novo review of judgment of acquittal)