United States v. MathisUnited States v. Mathis
ORDER OVERRULING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Defendant James Timothy Mathis pleaded guilty to Count Three of the Indictment, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm,
I.
The Court draws these facts from the uncontested portions of the PSR and plea agreement. See
On March 4, 2023, a police officer with the Sequoyah County Sheriff‘s Office pulled over Mathis for driving with a non-operational brake light. (PSR ¶ 6.) During the stop, Mathis told the officer that he had been “in trouble for manufacturing
When Mathis pled guilty on August 8, 2023, the Government dismissed the remaining counts in the Indictment, including one count for “knowingly and intentionally possess[ing] with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine,”
Mathis objected to this enhancement, arguing that the methamphetamine in his possession was for personal use only.1 (Docket No. 42 at 16.) As proof, Mathis points to his “long history” of methamphetamine abuse and statements he made to ATF agents in a post-arrest interview about his daily methamphetamine use. (Id.; PSR ¶ 8.)
The Government responds that if the case had gone to trial, it would have proven Mathis‘s intent to distribute. (Docket No. 42 at 18.) That proof would have included calling an expert to testify that: (1) the amount of methamphetamine found on Mathis was consistent with an amount found on someone intending to distribute it; (2) individuals who distribute methamphetamine typically carry firearms for protection when distributing it; and (3) drug dealers use digital scales like the ones found in Mathis‘s car to weigh drugs before distributing them. (Id. at 19.) And the Government would have offered Mathis‘s admission that he “had been in trouble in the past for manufacturing narcotics,” along with his history of manufacturing methamphetamine, if permitted on rebuttal. (Id.)
After reviewing the submissions by both Mathis and the Government, Probation concluded that Mathis‘s objection was unfounded. (Id. at 21.) In its view, “the amount [of methamphetamine] recovered was large enough to be charged under an intent to distribute statute” regardless of whether Mathis claimed it was for personal use. (Id.)
II.
Because Mathis has pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, the Court considers whether there is a preponderance of evidence that he did so in connection with the possession of five or more grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute: a federal felony and “drug trafficking offense,” punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year.
Mathis argues that there is not enough evidence that he intended to distribute methamphetamine. For support, Mathis points to his history of methamphetamine abuse and statements to law enforcement that he regularly used methamphetamine.
But these statements do not outweigh the remaining evidence, which proves more likely than not that he possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. In Mathis‘s car, there were the digital scales—“tools of the drug trade” from which a jury may infer the intent to distribute. United States v. Triana, 477 F.3d 1189, 1195 (10th Cir. 2007); see, e.g., United States v. Barela, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1212, 1229 (D.N.M. 2015) (collecting cases). And then there is the amount of methamphetamine on his person at the time of the traffic stop—over 15 grams—which the Government‘s expert would testify is consistent with drug dealing, not personal use. See, e.g., United States v. Draine, 26 F.4th 1178, 1191 (10th Cir. 2022) (“[A]n expert on illegal drug activities may testify that the amount . . . of drugs found in the defendant‘s possession by the police [is] consistent with the distribution of drugs for street use rather than with holding the drugs for personal use.“). That expert would also testify that methamphetamine distributors carry firearms for protection and scales for weighing drugs before distributing them. Cf. United States v. Tinsley, 62 F.4th 376, 387 (7th Cir. 2023) (rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge where a government witness testified that the defendant possessed “a quantity of meth[amphetamine] consistent with distribution as opposed to personal use” and that testimony was “bolstered,” in part, by the presence of a scale and firearms nearby). And finally, there is Mathis‘s history of and admission to manufacturing methamphetamine in the past. See United States v. Tobanche, 643 F. App‘x 781, 784 (10th Cir. 2016) (finding that evidence supported the enhancement where, in part, the defendant “had been involved with other drug felonies in the past” (citing United States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709, 716 (1st Cir. 2011))). Together, this evidence makes it more likely than not that Mathis possessed the methamphetamine on his person at the time of the traffic stop with intent to distribute it.
The Court separately finds the enhancement appropriate because it is more likely than not that Mathis possessed the firearm in connection with the commission of another felony: felony drug possession. Possessing methamphetamine is a felony for Mathis due to his prior conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, see
To be “in connection with . . . another felony offense” that is not a drug distribution offense, the firearm must have “facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating,” that offense.
With this deadly potential in mind, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that Mathis possessed the firearm in connection with felonious drug possession. United States v. Justice, in which the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court that applied the enhancement, is instructive here. 679 F.3d at 1255. In that case, Justice‘s firearms were within arm‘s reach at the time of his arrest, and he had methamphetamine on his person, so “[a] reasonable
III.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report are OVERRULED.
DATED: October 2, 2024
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ
United States Circuit Judge, Sitting by Designation