United States v. Thomas Ashburn, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13802

Background

Thomas Ashburn sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant; about a week later police searched the room where the sale occurred and found drugs, packaging/measuring equipment, and ledgers.
Officers also found three knives (≈7" blades) in the same room; two were on top of a dresser under which drugs were hidden.
Ashburn pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; the presentence investigation recommended a two‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of dangerous weapons.
The Guidelines range with the enhancement was 188–235 months; without it 151–188 months. The district court imposed a 172‑month sentence (a modest variance).
At sentencing the district court misstated the burden of proof, suggesting Ashburn had to show it was "clearly improbable" the knives were connected to the drug offense, when the government bears the burden. Ashburn did not object to that allocation.
The Eighth Circuit held the misallocation was harmless because the undisputed facts met the low "not clearly improbable" standard for the weapons enhancement and the district court’s ultimate finding was not clearly erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s misstatement that Ashburn had to prove it was "clearly improbable" the knives were connected to the offense warrants reversal	Ashburn argued the court required him to disprove the enhancement, which is error	Government conceded the misstatement but argued the error was harmless because the evidence strongly supported the enhancement	Held: Error was harmless; the evidence met the "not clearly improbable" standard and the finding was not clearly erroneous
Who bears the burden to justify a dangerous-weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1)	Ashburn implied the court’s allocation required him to prove non-connection	Government acknowledged burden is on the government but argued harmlessness here	Held: Burden is on the government (per precedent), but district court’s misallocation did not affect substantial rights in this case
What quantum of proof is required to apply the §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement	Ashburn argued there was no affirmative evidence connecting knives to drug activity	Government argued a low showing suffices—connection need only be "not clearly improbable"	Held: The applicable standard is "not clearly improbable," a low bar; proximity and accessibility of weapons to drugs sufficed
Whether district court’s factual finding that the enhancement applied was clearly erroneous	Ashburn contended his testimony that knives were for fish/pizza undermines connection	Government relied on location of knives relative to drugs and prior sale in that room	Held: Not clearly erroneous—the knives’ presence and accessibility in the room where drugs and a sale occurred supported the enhancement

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden of proof for sentencing enhancements rests with the government)
United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2010) (weapons enhancement requires a showing that connection is "not clearly improbable")
United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1994) (harmless‑error analysis where district court misallocated burden for weapons enhancement)
United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2000) (weapon found in same location as drugs usually suffices for enhancement)
United States v. Savage, 414 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2005) (government need not show defendant used or touched the weapon; accessibility can establish connection)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (allocation of burdens in plain‑error and harmless‑error review)
United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2005) (error is harmless only if it did not substantially influence outcome)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (standard for plain‑error review and effect on substantial rights)