UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NEYAUNTEU STALLINGS, a.k.a. “Coolio“, MILTON LUCAS, RICHARD ALLEN HEPBURN, a.k.a. “Al“, WALTER DEAN JOHNSON, a.k.a. “Walt“, Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EUSEBIO PHELPS, a.k.a. “Ebbie“, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEX SESSION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-11905
No. 03-12620
No. 04-10882
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
September 7, 2006
D. C. Docket No. 02-00045-CR-19-1, D. C. Docket No. 02-00045-CR-11-1, D. C. Docket No. 02-00045-CR-8-1. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge:
This appeal stems from a complicated criminal drug conspiracy centered in Atlanta, Georgia. In January 2002, a grand jury returned an indictment charging more than twenty defendants in a conspiracy involving possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and heroin. Six defendants are before us on appeal, including Walter Dean Johnson. These six defendants initially entered pleas of not guilty; one later changed his plea. The district court sentenced all the defendants to various prison sentences, which they timely appealed. We resolved most of the claims raised in this appeal by way of a separate unpublished opinion. United States v. Stallings et al., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 2006). Here we consider only defendant Johnson‘s argument that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for possession of a firearm under
I. BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Johnson of distributing cocaine in violation of
II. FIREARMS ENHANCEMENT
For sentencing purposes, possession of a firearm involves a factual finding, which we review for clear error. United States v. Alred, 144 F.3d 1405, 1420 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Geffrard, 87 F.3d 448, 452 (11th Cir. 1996). The federal Sentencing Guidelines provide that, if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed during a drug-trafficking offense, then a defendant‘s offense level should be increased by two levels, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense. United States v. Audain, 254 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001). To justify a firearms enhancement, the government must either establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was present at
In deciding whether the government satisfied its initial burden, relevant conduct includes “acts ‘that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.‘” United States v. Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 1390 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Here, not one witness said anything about Johnson‘s using or carrying a firearm during any of the drug transactions for which he was convicted. Nor did the government produce any evidence that Johnson possessed the firearms in question here during conduct associated with drug-trafficking activities. The only evidence that the government introduced was that the police found three handguns
Although “‘[e]xperience on the trial and appellate benches has taught that substantial dealers in narcotics keep firearms on their premises as tools of the trade,‘” United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 849 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Perez, 648 F.2d 219, 224 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)), the mere fact that a drug offender possesses a firearm does not necessarily give rise to the firearms enhancement. The government must show some nexus beyond mere possession between the firearms and the drug crime. See, e.g., Timmons, 283 F.3d at 1251 (noting that the “‘in relation to’ language ‘allay[s] explicitly the concern that a person could be’ punished under
Here, because the government provided no evidence connecting the pistols found in Johnson‘s home to his alleged drug activity and because the government never addressed the possibility that the weapons belonged to any of the other adults residing in his home, the government has failed to meet its burden. Applying the firearms enhancement on these facts is therefore clearly erroneous.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects but in the application of the firearms enhancer in computing Johnson‘s sentence, which is vacated. Johnson‘s case is remanded to the district court for resentencing consistent with both this opinion and our related unpublished disposition.
