United States v. Michael Voelz, 66 F.4th 1155

Michael A. Voelz pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)).
Two confidential informants made four controlled purchases of meth at Voelz’s farm; they observed firearms during the buys.
A search recovered 20 firearms, a silencer, and a pipe bomb; some weapons were in a shed where at least two buys occurred and a locked safe in a garage near the bulk meth.
The district court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)/U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and imposed the 120‑month statutory minimum.
Voelz appealed, arguing (1) the § 2D1.1 enhancement was erroneous, (2) safety-valve relief was wrongly denied, (3) the court improperly placed the burden of proof on him for safety-valve eligibility, and (4) the rulings are unconstitutional post‑Bruen. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Voelz's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was properly applied	Weapons were not connected to the offense; safe/legitimate purposes	Weapons were located near drugs and sales sites; nexus exists	Enhancement affirmed — not clearly improbable the weapons were connected
Whether denial of safety‑valve relief was proper	Eligible for safety valve despite weapons	§ 3553(f)(2) bars relief because weapons were possessed in connection with the offense	Denial affirmed — enhancement and facts showed possession in connection with offense
Whether placing burden on defendant to prove safety‑valve eligibility violates Constitution (Fifth/Sixth/Alleyne)	Court must treat safety‑valve factors as elements; government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt	Safety‑valve is judge‑determined and defendant bears burden; Alleyne/Haymond do not extend here	No plain error — Eighth Circuit precedent upheld assignment of burden to defendant
Whether application of enhancement and denial of safety‑valve relief is unconstitutional after Bruen	Bruen’s historical‑tradition test undermines weapon‑based sentencing effects	Bruen does not clearly render §2D1.1 or §3553(f) invalid; no plain error shown	No plain error — Bruen did not compel reversal and district court’s actions were reasonable

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (establishes historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms; preserves longstanding prohibitions)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be proven to a jury)
United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (U.S. 2019) (plurality; struck statute that added mandatory minimum via judicial factfinding)
United States v. Garcia, 772 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir. 2014) (applies "not clearly improbable" standard for §2D1.1 weapon nexus)
United States v. Escobar, 909 F.3d 228 (8th Cir. 2018) (requires temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and drug activity)
United States v. Moore, 184 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 1999) (holds §2D1.1 enhancement precludes safety‑valve relief)
United States v. Warford, 439 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2006) (weapon need only facilitate or have potential to facilitate drug offense)
United States v. Jackson, 552 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession suffices to deny safety‑valve relief)
United States v. Belitz, 141 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 1998) (legitimate purpose for a firearm does not preclude §2D1.1 enhancement)