933 F.3d 912
8th Cir.2019Background
- Davidson was arrested after police investigation and a confidential informant purchase of marijuana; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At arrest he had 13.7 g of marijuana on his person, ~$1,300 cash, and car keys; police found additional marijuana, three digital scales, packaging material, and drug residue in a car and two apartments he frequented.
- Two days before arrest Davidson sold 2.5 g of marijuana to a confidential informant and had weighed it on a digital scale.
- Upon seeing officers at a playground, Davidson fled on foot, discarded a pistol during the chase, scaled a six‑foot privacy fence into a backyard, and resisted arrest, causing minor injuries to several officers.
- The district court applied a four‑level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony (possession with intent to distribute) and a two‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight, resulting in a 110‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davidson possessed a firearm "in connection with another felony offense" (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)) | Davidson: The marijuana was for personal use, not distribution, so no underlying felony and no § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. | Government/District Court: Quantity, packaging, scales, cash, prior sale to informant, and other trafficking evidence support possession with intent to distribute. | Court affirmed: ample evidence of intent to distribute; no clear error applying the four‑level enhancement. |
| Whether § 3C1.2 reckless‑endangerment enhancement applies for flight on foot | Davidson: Short foot chase was instinctive and did not create substantial risk typical of vehicle chases; enhancement improper. | Government/District Court: Fleeing, discarding a firearm, scaling a fence, and struggling with officers created substantial risk of death or serious injury. | Court affirmed: foot chase can trigger § 3C1.2; facts supported the two‑level increase. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brockman, 924 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2019) (supports inferring distribution from quantity, packaging, scales, and cash)
- United States v. Thompson, 881 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2018) (similar holdings on indicia of intent to distribute)
- United States v. St. James, 415 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing § 3C1.2 applications, commonly in vehicle‑flight contexts)
- United States v. Bates, 561 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizing § 3C1.2 can apply to foot chases)
- United States v. Reyes‑Oseguera, 106 F.3d 1481 (9th Cir. 1997) (example of rejecting § 3C1.2 application for minimal‑risk flight)