United States v. Milo Eaden
914 F.3d 1004
5th Cir.2019Background
- Police executed a search after a controlled purchase of crack at Eaden’s home and found 5.5 g of crack and 19 rounds of ammunition; no firearm was found.
- Eaden had a prior felony drug conviction; he pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of ammunition.
- The PSR applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing ammunition "in connection with" another felony (the drug trafficking), producing a higher guidelines range.
- The PSR relied on the ammunition’s proximity to the drugs and adopted reasoning similar to the Sixth Circuit’s "fortress"/"one step closer" theory from Coleman to infer facilitation.
- Eaden objected, arguing ammunition alone (without a firearm) does not presumptively facilitate drug trafficking; the government urged the court to adopt Coleman’s presumption.
- The district court applied the enhancement; the Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, holding the enhancement was clear error on this record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ammunition alone can satisfy § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) | Eaden: ammunition alone does not facilitate trafficking absent a firearm | Gov: ammunition alone can be treated like a firearm ("one step closer") and presumptively facilitates | Ammunition alone can, in appropriate circumstances, qualify for the enhancement (yes), but context-specific |
| Whether a presumption of facilitation applies to ammunition alone in drug cases | Eaden: no presumption should apply | Gov: adopt Coleman and apply a presumption that ammunition potentially facilitates trafficking | No presumption for ammunition alone; the Note 14(B) presumption applies only to firearms in close proximity to drugs |
| Burden to prove facilitation when only ammunition is present | Eaden: government must show actual facilitation or potential to facilitate | Gov: factual inference sufficient; courts may presume facilitation like with firearms | Government must prove specific facts showing facilitation or potential (no automatic presumption) |
| Application to the record in this case | Eaden: ammunition was not shown to be in plain sight or used to intimidate; PSR’s proximity assertion insufficient | Gov: proximity and accessibility suffice to infer potential facilitation | Enhancement was clear error here; record lacked facts showing ammunition facilitated or had potential to facilitate the drug offense; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Coleman, 627 F.3d 205 (6th Cir. 2010) (held ammunition alone could be deemed to facilitate drug trafficking by making defendant "one step closer" to a firearm)
- United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009) (declined to extend Note 14(B)’s presumption beyond firearms in close proximity to drugs)
- United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (explains presumption when a loaded firearm is found in close proximity to narcotics)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for guideline interpretation and factual findings)