United States v. Sincleair, 16 F.4th 471

Phillip Sincleair pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances; a PSR attributed him to large-scale meth distribution and applied a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
On May 18, 2017 officers searched a residence owned by Chase Wood where Sincleair, others, and a firearm on a table were present; the firearm was later confirmed registered to Wood and not linked to a specific person.
The PSR stated Sincleair was the meth supplier for Mark Ilczyszyn and that Ilczyszyn sold an ounce to Wood while Sincleair was present; the PSR addendum asserted the firearm enhancement was appropriate either because the gun was present during the transaction (personal-possession theory) or because a co-conspirator possessed it and such possession was foreseeable.
Sincleair objected that he was at the residence for social drug use, the gun belonged to Wood, and the weapon’s presence was not foreseeable or temporally connected to his trafficking; the Government did not respond to that objection in the objections filing.
The district court adopted the PSR findings (including the enhancement), overruled Sincleair’s objection, and sentenced him to 210 months; Sincleair appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2D1.1(b)(1) two-level firearm enhancement applied	Gun was present during a drug transaction at which Sincleair was present; enhancement satisfied either by personal possession (temporal/spatial nexus) or co-conspirator possession that was foreseeable	No temporal/spatial nexus to Sincleair; gun was owned by Wood; Sincleair was there socially and not engaged in the relevant conspiracy; enhancement improper	Vacated and remanded: district court failed to state whether it relied on personal possession or co-conspirator foreseeability and record facts were insufficiently tied to either under de novo review
Whether district court made adequate factual findings to support enhancement	Adopted PSR findings that gun was present during transaction and Sincleair was present; that sufficed	PSR did not link gun to any person or show Sincleair owned, carried, or temporally connected to the weapon	Remand required for the court to make explicit findings and state basis if enhancement re-applied
Standard of review for sufficiency of facts supporting enhancement	Deferential factual review (clear error)	Deferential review argued by parties	Court applies de novo review here because the district court’s rationale was unclear about which theory it relied on, so the legal sufficiency of facts is reviewed de novo

United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2010) (vacated enhancement where district court failed to state whether it relied on personal possession or foreseeability; remand for explicit findings)
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (test for firearm enhancement: personal possession requires temporal/spatial nexus; alternative is co-conspirator possession that was reasonably foreseeable)
United States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2007) (buyer–seller relationship alone does not prove a conspiracy)
United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1991) (derivative liability for co-conspirator conduct derives from relevant-conduct principles)