United States v. James Bell, III ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-1005
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    James Bell, III, also known as "Boog"
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: December 13, 2021
    Filed: December 30, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    After James Bell III sold marijuana and guns to a confidential informant, he
    pleaded guilty to distributing a controlled substance near a protected location
    following a conviction for a felony drug offense, see 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1),
    (b)(1)(D), 860(a), and 851, using a communication facility to facilitate a felony drug
    crime, see 
    id.
     § 843(b), (d)(1), and possessing a firearm as a felon and as a person
    convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1),
    (g)(9), 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court1 found that the offenses had
    involved three to seven firearms—a finding that increased Bell's offense level under
    the Sentencing Guidelines by two levels. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). The court
    increased his offense level by four additional levels when it found that Bell had used
    or possessed firearms in connection with another felony offense, or had transferred
    them with reason to believe they would be used or possessed in connection with
    another felony offense. See id. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court sentenced Bell to 37
    months' imprisonment. He maintains on appeal that the court miscalculated his
    Guidelines range by applying the two firearms-related enhancements. We review
    these contentions for clear error, see United States v. Goldsberry, 
    888 F.3d 941
    ,
    943–44 (8th Cir. 2018), United States v. Mitchell, 
    963 F.3d 729
    , 731 (8th Cir. 2020),
    which arises when "the record leaves us with a firm and definite conviction that the
    district court made a mistake." See United States v. Quinto-Pascual, 
    9 F.4th 797
    , 799
    (8th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
    We begin with Bell's challenge to the two-level enhancement he received for
    offenses involving three to seven firearms. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). Bell
    concedes that he sold the informant two firearms and that these two firearms count
    toward this enhancement, but he disputes that the evidence supported a finding that
    a third firearm was involved. The district court found that a third firearm could be
    attributed to Bell because, when the informant met Bell at his residence to purchase
    the two firearms, Bell offered to sell the informant a third firearm for $600.
    Bell contends that there's no evidence he actually possessed a third gun. But
    the PSR states, without objection from Bell, that he told the informant "he had"
    another firearm that he would sell. We find no fault in the district court taking Bell
    1
    The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    at his word. As the court pointed out, moreover, Bell had indicated in his previous
    dealings with the informant that the firearms he offered to sell were not in his
    possession but that he would have to obtain them from his firearms source. On the
    day he offered to sell the third gun, however, he did not intimate a need to obtain the
    gun from a supplier, an indication that he had it ready to hand. We hold that the
    district court did not clearly err in applying this enhancement.
    Turning to the second enhancement at issue, the relevant guideline provides for
    a four-level enhancement if the defendant "used or possessed any firearm or
    ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred
    any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would
    be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense." See USSG
    § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Bell's PSR recommended the enhancement because he possessed
    firearms in connection with his distribution offense. It noted that, during the time
    when Bell and the confidential informant met to complete the firearms sale, Bell also
    sold a small amount of marijuana to an unknown woman.
    The district court, however, found that there was "not much of a connection"
    between the firearms and this isolated distribution. So rather than focus on that sale,
    the court focused on Bell's activities with the informant. It pointed out that he had
    sold the informant marijuana and that the two had discussed cocaine prices. The court
    also found it relevant that the informant had asked Bell about obtaining a
    "throwaway" firearm, and asked whether the firearms sold to him were "hot."
    According to the court, "The way the [informant] talks about the firearm is consistent
    with him using it in the drug trade." So the court found that Bell had reason to believe
    that the informant was "engaged in drug trafficking."
    We detect no clear error here. For the reasons that the district court offered,
    Bell had reason to suspect that the informant participated in the drug trade and that
    the informant might use the firearms he purchased from Bell while participating in
    -3-
    that trade since "firearms are tools of the trade in drug trafficking." See United States
    v. Dalton, 
    557 F.3d 586
    , 589 (8th Cir. 2009). We are not left with a definite and firm
    conviction that the district court made a mistake in applying the enhancement, as the
    record amply supports a conclusion that Bell transferred the firearms with "reason to
    believe that [they] would be used or possessed in connection with another felony
    offense."
    In addition, Application Note 14(B) to USSG § 2K2.1 provides that the
    enhancement applies "in the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is
    found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug
    paraphernalia." The record shows that Bell distributed both firearms and drugs from
    his residence, at least one time simultaneously. It also reflects that Bell had at least
    once traded drugs for guns. Given the firearms' close proximity to Bell's drug
    trafficking activities, we cannot say that the court clearly erred in applying the
    enhancement.
    Affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1005

Filed Date: 12/30/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/30/2021