962 F.3d 183
6th Cir.2020Background
- Feb 2018: Confidential informant bought 14.18 g of methamphetamine from Norman West in a Walmart restroom for $300 (controlled buy).
- Apr 2018: Same informant conducted a controlled buy at a Meijer restroom; West sold 116.112 g of simulated methamphetamine (Epsom salts) for $900.
- After the Apr transaction West entered the rear passenger seat of a vehicle driven by Erroll Johnson; Jeanetta Johnson sat in the front passenger seat; police stopped the car and found a Glock .22 under the front passenger seat.
- Indictment charged West with Feb distribution (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and Apr felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); West pleaded guilty to the distribution count and the felon-in-possession count was dismissed under the plea agreement.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on the firearm found in Apr 2018 as relevant conduct (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3), producing a Guidelines range of 37–46 months and imposed 40 months.
- West appealed, arguing (1) the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was improperly applied (disputing possession and that Apr conduct was relevant conduct) and (2) the 40‑month sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (West) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West possessed the firearm found in the vehicle | Only hearsay (Jeanetta Johnson’s statement) tied West to the gun; other occupants denied ownership; no proof West knew of the gun | Officer testified Jeanetta was Mirandized and credible; gun was within West’s reach; hearsay may be considered at sentencing with minimal indicia of reliability | Affirmed — court’s factual finding of possession was not clearly erroneous; hearsay met indicia-of-reliability standard |
| Whether the Apr 2018 transaction was relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) | Transactions were not part of same course of conduct (two‑month gap, not "regular") | Transactions shared common victim, common purpose (receiving money), and similar modus operandi (restroom sales), so they form a common scheme or plan | Affirmed — Apr transaction was relevant conduct as part of the same common scheme or plan |
| Whether the 40‑month sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | District court failed to adequately weigh West’s history/character and his need for drug treatment; a shorter sentence with treatment would be sufficient | Court considered treatment needs and recommended residential program; sentence was within the Guidelines range and therefore presumed reasonable | Affirmed — no plain error procedurally; sentence within Guidelines not an abuse of discretion substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orlando, 363 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (clear‑error standard for sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) (elements of actual or constructive possession and timing for weapon enhancement)
- United States v. McCloud, 935 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2019) (preponderance standard for sentencing findings; relevant conduct analysis)
- United States v. Faison, 339 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2003) (weapon need only be possessed during relevant conduct, not during the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Maken, 510 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2007) (state offenses may qualify as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3)
- United States v. Hodge, 805 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2015) (§ 1B1.3 not concerned with whether relevant conduct would group under § 3D1.2(d))
- United States v. Armstrong, 920 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2019) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing if it has minimal indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)