United States v. Nathen Adams
704 F. App'x 699
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Nathen Jerome Adams convicted for conspiracy to distribute explosives without a license (18 U.S.C. §§ 844(a), (n); 842(a)(3)(B)).
- At sentencing the district court applied a 4-level enhancement under USSG §2K1.3(b)(3) for transferring explosive material "with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense."
- Evidence: Adams transferred a stick of dynamite to an undercover ATF agent and was paid for it.
- After the sale was completed, the agent stated he would use the dynamite to blow up another person’s car; Adams replied, "That’ll do it."
- The district court found that Adams possessed the requisite mental state at the time of transfer and applied the 4-level enhancement; Adams appealed the sentencing calculation.
- Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, finding insufficient evidence that Adams knew or had reason to believe the dynamite would be used in a felony at the time of transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4-level USSG §2K1.3(b)(3) enhancement applies for transferring explosives when the buyer later states a felonious purpose and defendant replies favorably | Government: The enhancement applies because defendant transferred dynamite and responded to the buyer’s statement about a felonious use with "That'll do it," showing knowledge/intent or reason to believe | Adams: The post-transfer exchange does not show he knew or had reason to believe the dynamite would be used in a felony at the time of the transfer; no other evidence supports the required mental state | The court held the enhancement was improperly applied: the evidence was insufficient to prove Adams had the requisite mental state at the time of transfer; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural error standards for sentencing review)
- United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (appellate review of sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for applying guideline enhancements)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard for reviewing district court factual findings)
- United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2005) (insufficient evidence cannot support sentencing enhancement)