United States v. Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 11th Cir. (1997)

127 F.
3d 1388
11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 803
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
Marlon Jermaine SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96-9097.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1997.
Clinton Alan Wheeler, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

James L. Wiggins, U.S. Atty., Jessica J-M Hagen, Asst. U.S. Atty.,
Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.
Before BLACK, Circuit Judge, and HILL and HENDERSON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Jermaine Smith appeals the judgment of sentence imposed by the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for his
conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). We affirm.
I. FACTS
2
In mid-1995, the Athens-Clarke County police received information from a

confidential informant that Walter Bonds was involved in selling drugs from
his automobile detailing shop in Athens, Georgia. On October 25, 1995, the
informant went to the garage seeking to buy crack cocaine. Bonds told the
informant that he would send someone to get the drug. At Bonds' direction,
Smith then left the garage and traveled to his grandmother's residence at 1732
W. Hancock Street in Athens where he stopped briefly. He returned to the

garage with the crack and sold it to the informant. The following day, the
informant returned to the garage to purchase more of the drug. Bonds told her
he would have Smith deliver the cocaine to her. Smith arrived shortly thereafter
and sold the informant approximately one ounce of crack cocaine.
3
As a result of these activities, Bonds and Smith were indicted by a grand jury
on November 30, 1995. The indictment charged them with one count of
conspiracy to distribute crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and two counts of
distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Later, on
January 16, 1996, police agents staked out the house on W. Hancock Street for
the purpose of arresting Smith. Shortly thereafter, Smith arrived, got out of his
car and walked around to the back of the house. He returned quickly and drove
away. The agents followed, stopped and arrested him a few blocks from the
residence. At the time of the arrest, the agents found a loaded .380 semiautomatic gun on the driver's seat. A passenger in the car also had a loaded gun
in his jacket. A search of the car disclosed a Crown Royal bag containing a
rock of crack cocaine and a half-smoked marijuana cigarette. The agents then
returned to the house on W. Hancock Street and obtained the consent of Smith's
grandmother to search the premises. They found eight slabs of crack cocaine in
an old metal cabinet behind the house. That cocaine was in another Crown
Royal bag. Based on this discovery, a superseding indictment was returned
adding a fourth count for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine on
January 16, 1996, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).
Smith pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment dealing with the October
25, 1995 sale of cocaine. The presentence investigation report recommended a
two-level enhancement of his base offense score permitted by U.S.S.G.
2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of the firearm found on the seat beside him at the
time of his arrest on January 16, 1996. Smith argued that the enhancement was
improper because the gun had not been in his possession at the time of the
October 25, 1995 transaction. The government contended that possession of the
gun was part of the same course of conduct and that the sentence was properly
enhanced because of this pattern of behavior. The district court overruled
Smith's objection, added two levels to his base offense, and sentenced him to 72
months in prison.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

5
We review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo

and its findings of fact for clear error. U.S. v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62, 63 (11th
Cir.1995).
III. DISCUSSION
6
On appeal, the only issue before us is whether the district court erred in
enhancing Smith's base offense score by two levels for possession of a firearm
as provided in U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). Prior to November 1991, 2D1.1(b)(1)
authorized a two-level enhancement "if a firearm or other dangerous weapon
was possessed during commission of the offense...." Applying this version of
the guideline, a panel of this court held that the weapon must be possessed
during the offense of conviction, not just during the period of the defendant's
relevant conduct. U.S. v. Bennett, 928 F.2d 1548, 1557 (11th Cir.1991). In
November 1991, however, the guideline was amended to delete the restriction
that the weapon must be possessed during the offense of conviction. This court
has not expressly addressed the effect of this amendment on its decision in
Bennett.1
Other courts of appeals have found that the enhancement is now authorized if
the weapon was possessed during the offense of conviction or during related
relevant conduct. See U.S. v. Wetwattana, 94 F.3d 280, 284 n. 6 (7th Cir.1996);
see also U.S. v. Ortega, 94 F.3d 764, 767-68 (2d Cir.1996); U.S. v. Vital, 68
F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.1995); U.S. v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 982 (10th
Cir.1993); U.S. v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 721 (4th Cir.1993). The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "the criminal defendant who pleads
guilty to a single-offense narcotics transaction is now fair game for the
application of the rules of relevant conduct to the weapons enhancement, even
if the conspiracy count is dismissed." U.S. v. Mumford, 25 F.3d 461, 469 (7th
Cir.1994). We agree with this reasoning and hold that the enhancement is to be
applied whenever a firearm is possessed during conduct relevant to the offense
of conviction.
Relevant conduct includes acts "that were part of the same course of conduct or
common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction...." U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)
(2). As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, the circumstances of the
defendant's arrest, if of the same nature as the offense of conviction, is
"relevant conduct for sentencing purposes." Vital, 68 F.3d at 119. In this case,
the superseding indictment charged Smith with possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine on January 16, 1996, the day he was arrested. This is
clearly relevant conduct for purposes of applying any sentencing enhancements.
Since Smith had a firearm on him at the time he was arrested, he possessed a
firearm within the meaning of 2D1.1(b)(1). Therefore, the district court did
not err in enhancing the sentence in this case.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
9
1
After the parties filed their briefs in this appeal, another panel of our court
decided U.S. v. Cooper, 111 F.3d 845 (11th Cir.1997). The court held that
2D1.1(b)(1) requires "the government to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the firearm was present at the site of the charged conduct." Id. at
847. However, a closer examination of Cooper reveals a material difference in
the operative facts in that case and those surrounding the events here. In
Cooper, the firearms were not on the defendant's person when he was arrested
nor were they found in proximity to the drugs. They, therefore, lacked the
necessary connection to the defendant and the crime to which he pled guilty to
support application of the enhancement. In this case, Smith had the weapon and
a small quantity of drugs with him at the time of his arrest

United States v. Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 11th Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 11th Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 11th Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

127 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals,

Clinton Alan Wheeler, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Marlon Jermaine Smith appeals the judgment of sentence imposed by the

In mid-1995, the Athens-Clarke County police received information from a

W. Hancock Street in Athens where he stopped briefly. He returned to the

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

You might also like