United States v. Shields
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25986
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Shields was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- District court used a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony based on drugs found near Shields at arrest.
- Drugs found included small amounts of marijuana and cocaine residue; their possession was charged as a Tennessee felony due to prior convictions.
- Government presented police testimony and a co-seller (Moore) testimony; Shields claimed the drugs were Moore’s and that he carried the gun for protection.
- District court accepted the enhancement and calculated a guideline range of 110–137 months, then sentenced Shields to 108 months under § 3553(a).
- We vacate and remand because the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement lacked sufficient nexus between the firearm and the drugs, making the sentence procedurally unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6) applies given nexus between gun and drugs. | Goes to Shields; government proved drugs near him and felony possession. | Fortress nexus not shown; small amounts suggest no facilitation. | Enhancement not warranted; no sufficient nexus. |
| Whether the government proved a separate felony and that firearm facilitated it. | Shields possessed drugs, constituting a separate felony under Tennessee law. | Even if a felony existed, no proof the firearm facilitated it. | Yes, separate felony proven; enhancement vacated due to lack of facilitation. |
| Whether proximity alone suffices to apply the fortress theory in drug possession. | Proximity can support the enhancement in some cases. | Proximity alone is insufficient without evidence of facilitation. | Proximity alone insufficient; fortress theory not proven here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McKenzie, 410 F. App’x 943 (6th Cir. 2011) (limits fortress theory to evidence of facilitation; small quantity favors not applying § 2K2.1(b)(6))
- United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2001) (discusses nexus and fortress theory concepts in § 2K2.1(b)(6))
- United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2006) (fortress theory framework for drug-related offenses)
- United States v. Berkey, 406 F. App’x 938 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished; discusses proximity versus public-usage context)
- Gibson v. United States, 985 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1993) (government bears burden by preponderance for enhancements)
- United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011) (reviewing factual findings for clear error in sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural reasonableness of sentences; guidelines calculation)