United States v. Tyrell Grimes, 825 F.3d 899

Tyrell Grimes was convicted by a jury of (1) possessing an unregistered firearm (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), 5871) and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)); acquitted on a count charging possession of a firearm with serial number removed (18 U.S.C. § 922(k)).
The charges arose from an ATF undercover operation in which co-defendant Jenkins negotiated and completed a firearms purchase; ATF recovered a machine gun and a 9 mm pistol with an obliterated serial number.
Jenkins testified Grimes negotiated for and provided cash to purchase firearms on Grimes’s behalf; ATF agents observed Grimes hand Jenkins money and sit in an SUV near the transaction.
The government proceeded on constructive-possession theory—arguing Grimes had knowledge, control, and intent to possess the firearms though he did not physically hold them.
At sentencing the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for a firearm with an obliterated serial number; Grimes challenged application as inconsistent with his acquittal on Count II and argued his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed both the convictions and the 92-month concurrent sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for knowing possession and knowledge that weapon was a machine gun	Grimes: evidence insufficient; he thought meeting was for marijuana and did not knowingly possess firearms	Government: constructive possession proven by nexus—cash transfer, Jenkins’s testimony, proximity during transaction	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support constructive possession and knowledge that machine gun was automatic
Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement for obliterated serial number	Grimes: enhancement inconsistent with jury acquittal on Count II (implies no knowledge of altered serial)	Government: guideline commentary states enhancement applies regardless of defendant's knowledge	Affirmed: enhancement properly applied; knowledge not required by guideline commentary
Substantive reasonableness of 92-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)	Grimes: sentence greater than necessary	Government: sentence within guideline range and justified by factors	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; sentence at bottom of guideline range presumed reasonable
Standard of review for sufficiency and sentencing	Grimes: requests de novo review where applicable	Government: applies established standards	Court applied de novo review for sufficiency and guideline interpretation; abuse-of-discretion for substantive reasonableness

United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144 (8th Cir. 2003) (sufficiency review and constructive possession principles)
United States v. Garrett, 648 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (nexus requirement for constructive possession)
United States v. Piwowar, 492 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2007) (constructive possession requires knowledge, ability to control, and intent)
United States v. Jones, 559 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2009) (jury may reject defendant’s exculpatory account)
United States v. Howard, 759 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of guideline interpretation)
United States v. Castillo, 713 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2013) (procedural and substantive sentencing review framework)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)