United States v. McGehee
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3544
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- McGehee was convicted by jury of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (Count One), using and carrying a firearm during a drug offense and possession in furtherance (Count Two), and felon in possession of a firearm (Count Three).
- On July 12, 2008, police stopped a vehicle in which McGehee rode; PCP odor and plain-view items prompted investigation.
- Officer Holloway smelled PCP, observed a vanilla extract bottle consistent with PCP storage, and found drugs and cash on McGehee during arrest.
- McGehee moved to suppress the stop; the district court denied the motion.
- During trial, jail calls were admitted; the district court denied judgment of acquittal on Counts One and Three but granted it in part on Count Two.
- At sentencing, the Probation Office denied a request for a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the district court denied relief and imposed a sentence of 147 months; McGehee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop and subsequent detention reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | McGehee contends the stop was invalid, and detention exceeded permissible scope. | Holloway acted on a valid traffic violation and reasonable suspicion; the stop and extension were permissible. | The stop was valid and detention reasonable; suppression denied. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that the firearm was possessed in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime? | Government failed to show a nexus between the firearm and drug offense. | Evidence including drug distribution context, firearm proximity, and furtive behavior supports nexus. | Yes; sufficient nexus under § 924(c)(1)(A) supported Count Two. |
| Did the district court err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under § 3E1.1? | McGehee sought a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. | Argument framed as procedural Guidelines issue; waiver/forfeiture applies; court could deny. | Waived/forfeited; no plain-error or district court error; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruiz, 664 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard for suppression review; de novo review of reasonableness; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (reasonable suspicion and scope of detention in traffic stops; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2009) (two-step analysis for traffic stop reasonableness; inception and scope)
- United States v. White, 584 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2009) (consideration of evidence at suppression hearing and trial; scope of review)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors)
- United States v. Gauvin, 173 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 1999) (acceptance of responsibility when defendant goes to trial; deferential review of district court’s decision)
- United States v. Carrasco-Salazar, 494 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2007) (waiver of objections to PSR; effect on appellate review of sentencing issues)