United States v. Cedric Mack ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2357
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Cedric D. Mack,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 9, 2011
    Filed: May 13, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cedric D. Mack pleaded guilty in District Court1 to a charge of being a felon
    in possession of a firearm. The court sentenced him to seventy-two months in prison.
    Mack appeals from the judgment, specifically his sentence, challenging the District
    Court's decision to increase his offense level by four pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) upon finding that Mack possessed the firearms in
    question in connection with another felony offense. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    The relevant facts underlying the court's § 2K2.1(b)(6) finding are undisputed.
    Acting on complaints concerning illegal drug transactions in the area of 28th and Park
    in Kansas City, Missouri, officers from the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department
    began surveilling the neighborhood. On September 2, 2007, on the sidewalk in front
    of Mack's residence at 2738 Park, officers observed activity consistent with the sale
    of illegal drugs. At one point, an unidentified person brandished a handgun and ran
    toward a vehicle, which drove away before shots were fired. A second individual,
    also unidentified, took the gun into 2738 Park through the front door without
    knocking. On September 5, a confidential informant (CI) went to Mack's residence.
    Mack opened the door and let the CI into the house, where the CI purchased 0.2 grams
    of crack cocaine from someone known as Wayne. A week later, a CI purchased 0.3
    grams of crack cocaine from individuals standing outside 2738 Park.
    On September 27, 2007, officers searched 2738 Park pursuant to a warrant and
    recovered, among other things, a clear plastic bag containing twelve individual
    packages of crack cocaine totaling 1.7 grams from the top of a built-in hutch in the
    dining room, an electronic scale from a drawer in the hutch, a loaded .38 caliber
    revolver from under the couch in the living room, and a 16-gauge shotgun from the
    basement. Mack, who was present for the search, admitted ownership of the firearms
    but denied ownership of the crack cocaine.
    We review for clear error the District Court's finding that Mack possessed the
    firearms in connection with the intent to distribute illegal drugs. See United States v.
    Smith, 
    535 F.3d 883
    , 885 (8th Cir. 2008). Mack's counsel objected to the presentence
    investigation report's § 2K2.1(b)(6) recommendation and argued that Mack, although
    admitting that he had a crack problem, was unaware that crack was being distributed
    from his residence. Counsel contended that the dealers must have been Mack's
    nephews or sons who were living in the house. The District Court nevertheless found
    the four-level increase applicable, obviously finding Mack's explanation—that he was
    not involved in distributing drugs—not credible. On this record, we conclude that a
    -2-
    preponderance of the evidence supports the District Court's § 2K2.1(b)(6) finding, and
    thus the finding was not clear error. See United States v. Bridges, 
    569 F.3d 374
    ,
    377–78 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that a sentencing court applies "a preponderance of the
    evidence standard to determine whether a four-level enhancement for possessing a
    firearm 'in connection with another felony offense'" is warranted and that the court's
    credibility findings will rarely be clear error). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence
    imposed by the District Court.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2357

Judges: Melloy, Bowman, Benton

Filed Date: 5/13/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024