United States v. Ransom
691 F. App'x 504
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Ransom was convicted by a jury of: manufacturing >100 marijuana plants, possession with intent to distribute, possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession; total sentence 120 months plus 30 days for contempt.
- Police found ~200 marijuana plants in the basement and drug proceeds sufficient for Ransom and his girlfriend to quit jobs; scales and packaged marijuana were found in the living room.
- Two loaded, powerful semi-automatic firearms with rounds chambered were located in the living room in immediately accessible positions near the front of a small house.
- Evidence showed Ransom obtained the guns by having his girlfriend (a felon’s proxy) complete purchase paperwork because he was prohibited from buying firearms.
- Co-defendant/girlfriend pled guilty before trial and testified for the government, but also testified that Ransom did not sell drugs from the house and did not take the firearms out of the house.
- Post-trial, Ransom challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence that the firearms were possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking and (2) violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that firearms were possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking | Government: circumstantial evidence (scale, packaged drugs, proximity, accessibility, loaded semi-autos, illegal acquisition) supports inference guns protected drug operation | Ransom: mere co-location of guns and grow operation insufficient; girlfriend's testimony undermines inference and shows drugs sold elsewhere | Affirmed: reasonable jury could infer guns were kept ready and accessible to protect/ further the drug business |
| Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 3161) violation—whether >70 non-excludable days elapsed | Government: clock tolled by co-defendant’s appearances and pretrial motion; trial within statutory time | Ransom: initially calculated 80 non-excludable days from indictment; later conceded clock began with co-defendant’s appearance; argued severance motion days not excludable | Affirmed: no violation — clock began with latest codefendant appearance; nine days tolled for pending severance motion which is excludable automatically |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review: view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Banks, 451 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2006) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility in sufficiency review)
- United States v. King, 632 F.3d 646 (10th Cir. 2011) (intent to possess a weapon to further drug trafficking may be proven circumstantially)
- United States v. Basham, 268 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001) (factors relevant to firearms-in-furtherance inference: type, accessibility, proximity to drugs/profits, loaded status, circumstances)
- Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (1986) (speedy trial computation includes latest codefendant for joined defendants)
- Tinklenberg v. United States, 563 U.S. 647 (2011) (filing of a pretrial motion automatically tolls the Speedy Trial Act clock)
- United States v. Young, 45 F.3d 1405 (10th Cir. 1995) (period while a co-defendant’s pretrial motion remained pending is excludable even if motion later withdrawn)