United States v. Sharp, 6 F.4th 573

Background

Three separate law-enforcement encounters with Dan Sharp: Sept. 2017 (officers executed a warrant at a Horn Lake home and seized drugs, scales, firearms; Sharp arrested), Feb. 2018 (traffic stop after swerving; officers found a gun, marijuana, more firearms, scales, and other drugs in his car), and Apr. 19, 2018 (confidential informant tip led agents to observe an apparent hand-to-hand sale at the courthouse; officers seized cocaine, meth, and paraphernalia).
Grand jury indicted Sharp on multiple counts (19 originally; three later dismissed) including felon-in-possession, possession with intent to distribute, distribution, and two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts; a jury convicted him on 15 counts.
Sharp moved (through counsel and later pro se) to sever charges by incident and moved to suppress evidence from the Feb. and Apr. stops; the district court denied severance and suppression motions.
Sharp repeatedly clashed with two court-appointed attorneys, then waived counsel on the eve of trial and proceeded pro se with standby counsel; the court twice confirmed his waiver when confusion arose during trial.
On appeal Sharp raised challenges to suppression, sufficiency of the evidence (drugs and § 924(c) counts), denial of severance, visible shackling, admission of a confidential-informant tip (Confrontation Clause), denial of reinstatement of counsel, and ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Feb. 2018 traffic stop (suppression)	Deputy credibly observed Sharp swerve into lane, justifying stop; court credited officer	Sharp says stop was unjustified and evidence should be suppressed	Denial of suppression affirmed (trial court’s credibility finding not clearly erroneous)
Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to distribute and distribution	Evidence (drugs, scales, baggies, firearms, texts, witness sale) supports intent and distribution	Sharp claims drugs were for personal use and he did not possess/distribute on some dates	Convictions affirmed; jury reasonably inferred intent from paraphernalia, guns, texts, witness testimony
Sufficiency for § 924(c) firearm-in-furtherance convictions	Firearms were accessible, proximate to drugs, unlawfully possessed, some stolen — support furtherance inference	Sharp disputes that guns furthered drug trafficking	§ 924(c) convictions affirmed based on proximity, accessibility, illegality of possession, and context
Denial of motion to sever counts	Joinder proper under Rule 8; no specific and compelling prejudice shown; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice	Joinder forced Sharp to choose to testify on all counts or none, prejudicing defense	Denial affirmed; Sharp failed to show specific/compelling prejudice or identify testimony he needed to give on one count but not others
Visible shackling before jury	Marshal’s security concerns, Sharp’s violent history, and long potential sentence justified padded shackles	Shackling violated due process absent particularized justification	No plain error; shackling was justified by particularized safety concerns and marshal advice
Admission of informant tip (Confrontation Clause)	Testimony explained course of investigation and was nonhearsay; harmless because overwhelming evidence of guilt	Testimony introduced highly inculpatory out-of-court assertion that Sharp had meth, violating confrontation rights	Error found (Confrontation Clause) but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong independent evidence of April arrest and sale
Denial of reinstatement of counsel / right to counsel	Sharp knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel and declined multiple chances to reassert right; Faretta protects pro se choice	Standby counsel suggested reappointment; Sharp was confused and needed counsel reinstated	No error: Sharp did not affirmatively reassert right to counsel after court’s questions, so court properly honored his waiver
Ineffective-assistance claim	N/A (United States contends claim is premature on direct appeal)	Sharp alleges prior appointed counsel were ineffective	Claim denied without prejudice to collateral review because record insufficient for direct-appeal resolution

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Santiago, 410 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (clear-error review of suppression when court credits officer testimony)
United States v. Lee, 966 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard for de novo sufficiency review while deferring to jury inferences)
United States v. Kates, 174 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 1999) (presence of scales and packaging supports intent to distribute)
United States v. Youngblood, [citation="576 F. App'x 403"] (5th Cir. 2014) (paraphernalia and guns can support intent-to-distribute inference)
United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 215 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2000) (factors showing firearm possession furthered drug trafficking)
United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084 (5th Cir. 2020) (upholding § 924(c) conviction when firearm found with drug paraphernalia)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (due-process limits on visible shackling; need particularized justification)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation)
United States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (rules on reassertion/withdrawal of waiver of counsel)
United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2017) (limits on admitting out-of-court statements to "explain the investigation" when they risk backdoor hearsay/Confrontation violations)
United States v. Thomas, 724 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error/harmlessness framework for constitutional trial errors)