United States v. Troy McFarland, Sr.
17-6470
6th Cir.Mar 18, 2019Background
- From Sept. 2014–Apr. 2015 DEA wiretaps and surveillance investigated diverted prescription pills and heroin; McFarland and four co-defendants were charged in a conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, oxymorphone, and hydromorphone.
- Agents intercepted calls showing McFarland directing money deposits, supplying pills to co-conspirators, distributing burner phones, and instructing associates to discard phones after seizures.
- Searches of a hotel room and a residence leased by McFarland recovered large quantities of pills, drug paraphernalia, packaging equipment, a kilo-press, heroin, and two firearms (a 9mm handgun and a Draco rifle) in the attic. McFarland’s personal items and lease were found in the residence.
- McFarland pled guilty without an agreement. The PSR applied a +2 firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and a +4 leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), producing an offense level 33 and Guidelines range 210–240 months; the court sentenced McFarland to 200 months.
- On appeal McFarland challenged (1) the firearms enhancement (constructive possession/connection), (2) the leadership enhancement (extent of leadership), (3) overstated criminal history, and (4) § 3553(a) reasonableness of his sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) | McFarland: no constructive possession of attic firearms; even if possession shown, it was clearly improbable weapons were connected to the drug offense | Government: McFarland leased residence; personal papers, clothes, computer, and drugs throughout house show dominion and control; firearms were near drugs and wrapped in same packaging | Held: Affirmed. Constructive possession and connection to offense established by preponderance; defendant failed to show clearly improbable connection |
| Leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) (+4) | McFarland: only controlled one person (so at most § 3B1.1(c) +2) | Government: McFarland exercised control over at least one participant and conspiracy involved multiple participants; leader-of-one within an enterprise of five-plus qualifies for +4 | Held: Affirmed. Even if court misstated requirement, concession that he led at least one participant in a multi‑participant conspiracy supports +4 |
| Criminal history category overstated (downward departure) | McFarland: old 1992 convictions (six points) unfairly overrepresent criminal history; sought downward departure under § 4A1.3(b)(1) | Government: district court considered and denied mitigation; court had discretion and record shows it knew ability to depart/variate | Held: Affirmed. No clear evidence district court misunderstood its authority; denial not reviewable as legal error |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness (§ 3553(a)) | McFarland: district court inadequately explained below-Guidelines 200‑month sentence and failed to give weight to disparity/age/Guidelines calculation concerns | Government: court considered § 3553(a) factors, noted mitigating factors, and imposed a variance below Guidelines; sentencing explanation sufficient | Held: Affirmed. Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; explanation adequate and below‑Guidelines sentence not unreasonably severe |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz Solorio v. United States, 337 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2003) (government must prove possession by preponderance; burden shifts to defendant to show clear improbability of connection)
- Hough v. United States, 276 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2002) (review of firearm‑possession findings; accessibility supports constructive possession)
- Wheaton v. United States, 517 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2008) (joint possession doctrine; defendant must present evidence to show clear improbability)
- Bailey v. United States, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009) (nonexclusive possession alone insufficient for constructive possession without additional incriminating evidence)
- Greeno v. United States, 679 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (firearms in proximity to drugs supports § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement)
- Robinson v. United States, 503 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2007) (under § 3B1.1(a), supervising or managing one participant in an enterprise of five or more suffices for organizer/leader enhancement)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must provide enough explanation to show it considered parties’ arguments and has reasoned basis for sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards for sentencing)