throbber
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`
`ÿ    
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ  ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ ÿ
`!!!!!!!!!!!!ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`
ÿÿÿ" ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`#ÿÿ
`

ÿ" $$ÿ%ÿ
`&%&ÿ'(')ÿ"*'+*,,ÿ,-./0ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ11*,,-'(ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`11*-,ÿ2.3ÿ(4*ÿ ')(*5ÿ(-(*6ÿ)6(.)7(ÿ8.(ÿ
`2.ÿ(4*ÿ")55,*ÿ)6(.)7(ÿ2ÿ*''69,#-')-ÿ
`:ÿ.)3)'-,ÿ7()'ÿ
ÿ7.;;<;;=ÿ
`)6(.)7(ÿ>85?*@ÿ'.-A,*ÿ"-,-749ÿÿ"-'')'ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`.?8*5ÿ'ÿ"-.74ÿ0ÿ; ÿ
`ÿ
`B*2.*@ÿÿB B0ÿ"
C"DEÿ-'5ÿ0ÿ
`).78)(ÿ>85?*6ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`:1)')'ÿ2),*5@ÿ8?86(ÿF0ÿ; =ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`
`PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`
`No. 23-1413
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`Vv.
`
`ANTONIO MIZZELLE CLARK
`A/K/A Antonio Menzell Clark,
`
`Appellant
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
`(D.C. Criminal Action No. 3-22-cr-00235-001)
`District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
`
`Argued on March 13, 2024
`
`Before: BIBAS, MONTGOMERY-REEVESand ROTH,
`Circuit Judges
`
`(Opinion filed: August 27, 2024)
`
`

`

`Matthew L. Clemente
`88 N. Franklin Street
`Second Floor
`Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
`
`(Argued)
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
` 
 ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ   ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`! "#$ %ÿ&'ÿ()*(ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`+ " ÿ,ÿ'-- ÿ
`ÿÿ& ÿ. ÿ$  ÿÿÿ
`/,,ÿ,ÿ0  ÿ "ÿ' 1ÿÿ
` 23ÿÿ! " 4 ÿ'5 +ÿ
`& / ÿ$6ÿ2*7%ÿ+ÿ2((ÿ
`
`  %ÿ&'ÿ(3*2ÿ
`ÿ
`  ÿ8 ÿ  %ÿ9": ÿ
`/,,ÿ,ÿ0  ÿ "ÿ' 1ÿ
` ÿ8"ÿ,ÿ& "1 5  ÿ
`1 5 ÿ; ÿ<
=ÿ0  ÿ "ÿ
`++"ÿ
`(3*(ÿÿ>ÿ%ÿ ÿ ÿ
`& / ÿ$6ÿ * ÿ
`; "=+4%ÿ&'ÿ()(* ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`+ " ÿ,ÿ'-- ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`/&??/ÿ/ÿ@;9ÿ
`/0<@ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Carlo D. Marchioli, Esq.
`Office of United States Attorney
`Middle District of Pennsylvania
`Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse
`1501 N 6th Street, 2nd Floor
`P.O. Box 202
`Harrisburg, PA 17102
`
`(Argued)
`Patrick J. Bannon
`Office of United States Attorney
`235 N Washington Avenue
`P.O. Box 309, Suite 311
`Scranton, PA 18503
`
`Counsel for Appellee
`
`OPINION OF THE COURT
`
`ÿ
`
`

`

`ÿ
` ÿ
` 
ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ ÿÿ 
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ  ÿ
`ÿÿ 
ÿ ÿ
 ÿ
ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿÿ
`
 !
` ÿÿ"
`ÿ ÿ  
 ÿ  #ÿÿ$ÿ
`ÿ%&'()*+ÿ ÿÿ

ÿ
ÿ
ÿ,

`
ÿ
ÿÿÿ
`+-./-.01.2ÿ-.4'.0-5-./ÿ67(ÿ897++-++:;ÿ:;ÿÿ  ÿ#ÿ#ÿ#ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
ÿ 
ÿ
 ÿÿ766-.+-<ÿ=.>-(ÿ?@A@A@B@ÿCÿ
`DED#FGHGIHG$H#ÿÿ ÿÿ  ÿ

ÿ 
`
ÿÿÿ
`  ÿÿ"
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
ÿJ ÿÿÿÿ
`

ÿ  ÿ81.ÿ07..-0/17.ÿK1/4<ÿ'.7/4-(ÿ0(15-@ÿÿL ÿ
ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ,
10/ÿ%7=(/*+ÿ
`M 
ÿÿ

`#ÿ
`ÿ
`NOÿQRSTUVWXYZÿ
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
ÿÿ[ÿ
` 
`ÿ
 ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ 
`ÿÿ
ÿ ÿÿ
`
`
ÿ
`ÿ

ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ  ÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ  
ÿ

ÿ ÿ
`
`
#ÿÿ\  ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿÿ ÿÿ 
`ÿ
ÿ ÿÿ  ÿ ÿ
` #ÿÿ]  ÿ
 ÿÿ 
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`

ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ "
ÿ

ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
 !
` ÿÿ !ÿ
ÿÿ^ ÿ  #Fÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ

ÿÿÿ
`
`ÿÿ
ÿ
 !
` ÿ
` 
ÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ#ÿÿÿÿ
`Fÿ_ÿ67(-.+10ÿ(-`1-Kÿ76ÿ%&'()*+ÿ0-&&ÿ947.-ÿ07.61(5->ÿ41+ÿ
`#ÿÿa4-ÿ(-07(>ÿ07./'1.+ÿ.7ÿ-`1>-.0-ÿ76ÿ47Kÿ%&'()*+ÿ
`
` 
 ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿ
ÿ
#ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`

`

`Clark pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
`prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).? The
`probation office (PO) prepared a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) in
`whichit calculated a total offense level of 23, including a four-
`level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).? That
`section applies 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.*
`
`ÿ
` ÿ   ÿ
`
ÿ ÿ
ÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿ
`

 ÿÿ
ÿ
 
ÿÿÿÿÿ
`  ÿÿ!ÿ
`
ÿ
"ÿ#$ ÿ ÿÿ#% "ÿ& ÿ#& ÿ
ÿ
`'
"ÿ
ÿ" "   ÿÿ   ÿÿ  ÿÿ()ÿ
"

`ÿÿ %
`  ÿ" ÿ  ÿ*ÿÿ+ , - (ÿÿ! ÿ
`"
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ   .ÿ
`ÿ  ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿÿ 
ÿ
ÿ
`""
ÿ'
ÿ ÿ ÿ/ÿÿ
` ÿÿ  ÿÿ
ÿÿ
` 
ÿ'
ÿ' 
`)ÿ
  )ÿÿÿ ÿ
`
ÿ  ÿ
ÿ' ÿÿ  ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ
`""
ÿ'
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ0 
`ÿÿ%
 ÿ" 
`ÿ ÿ ÿ"

ÿÿÿ
`
`  ÿ
ÿ

`ÿÿ 
ÿ  )ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`" 
`ÿ
ÿ"
"
ÿ  ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ1)ÿ'ÿ
`
`" ÿ2"  ÿÿ%
 ÿ" 
`ÿ ÿÿ
`  ÿÿ
`" ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
 ÿÿÿ345678ÿ:6;67<ÿ=>ÿ?@@A7)ÿBÿ
`(% ()ÿC ÿDEÿ(, ,)ÿ ÿF,ÿ( ÿ
ÿ0
`ÿ)ÿC ÿG0ÿ
`"
" ÿ" 

`ÿ
ÿ "ÿÿ 
 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ" ÿ0  ÿ

` ÿ ÿÿÿ
H ÿÿ
`(ÿIÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ %  ÿ" ÿ   ÿÿ
`+ , - )ÿ ÿ   ÿÿ  ÿ" " 
ÿ
"  ÿ
ÿ
`ÿÿÿ  ÿÿ  /ÿ
ÿÿ %  ÿ" ÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` )ÿÿ
   ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`
` /ÿ
ÿÿ %  ÿ" ÿÿ 
"

`ÿ
`
ÿ  ÿÿ+ J /ÿ ÿ
 ÿÿ %  ÿ "
ÿ
`ÿ"" "ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ" 
`ÿÿ
`" ÿÿ ÿÿ  ÿ" " 
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`" ÿ  ÿÿ+ , - ÿ
` ÿ*ÿÿ+ , - ÿC ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`? Although an as-applied challengeto the constitutionality of §
`922(g)(1)
`is pending before this Court, Clark does not
`challenge his conviction under the statute. Moreover, we
`recently rejected an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) on
`facts similar to those at issue here. United States v. Moore, No.
`23-1843, 2024 WL 3629416,at *6 (3d Cir. Aug. 2, 2024) (“A
`convict completing his sentence on supervised release does not
`have a Second Amendmentright to possessa firearm.”).
`§
`3
`In addition to the four-level enhancement pursuant
`2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the total offense level calculation included(i)
`a base offense level of fourteen; (11) a four-level enhancement
`based on the number of guns, as stipulated in the plea
`agreement;
`(iii) a four-level enhancement
`for trafficking
`firearms under § 2K2.1(b)(5); and (iv) a three-level reduction
`for acceptance of responsibility. Clark does not challenge any
`aspect of the offense level calculation other
`than the
`enhancementunder § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
`4U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2021).
`
`

`

`The PSR recommended applying the enhancement because
`Clark “possessed the firearm in connection with another felony
`offense (drug distribution) or transferred the firearms with
`knowledge, intent, or reason to believe they would be used in
`connection with another felony offense.”°
`
`Clark objected, asserting that providing drugs in
`exchange for
`firearms is
`legally insufficient
`to support
`application ofthe enhancement. In response, the PO submitted
`an addendum to the PSR, explaining that it recommended
`applying the enhancement because Clark “possessed a firearm
`or ammunition in connection with another felony offense (drug
`trafficking).”© The addendum further explained that Clark was
`“involved in the trading of cash, drugs, and firearms” and
`“admittedly purchased firearms from individuals who straw
`purchased them and subsequently traveled to New Jerseyto re-
`sell the firearmsfor cash andillicit drugs.””
`
`ÿ
` ÿÿ
` 
 ÿ
ÿ ÿ

 
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`
 
`
ÿ  ÿ

` ÿ
`
ÿ
`
`
ÿ! ÿ 
`
"ÿ
`ÿ
 ÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`#

`  $ÿ

$ÿ
`ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ%ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ
`
`
 
`
ÿ  ÿ

` ÿ
`
ÿ
`
&' ÿ
`ÿ(#ÿ
`)  $ÿ
ÿ ÿ
`% 
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`* 
ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿÿ
 
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` 
`
ÿ
`ÿ ÿ

 
&ÿÿ+
ÿ
`
$ÿ ÿ,ÿ  ÿ
`
ÿ 
 ÿ
`ÿ ÿ$ÿ*

ÿ ÿÿ
` 
 ÿ
`
ÿ ÿ

 
ÿ ÿ(#ÿ-.//0// ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ 

`
ÿ
ÿ
`
 
`
ÿ  ÿ

` ÿ
`
ÿ
`
ÿ! ÿ
`1223435678'9ÿÿ ÿ 
 ÿ ÿ*
 ÿ ÿ(#ÿ ÿ
`35:.:0;ÿ35ÿ1<0ÿ1;356ÿ.2ÿ4/<=ÿ;>6/=ÿ5;ÿ230?/'ÿ5;ÿ
`  ÿ  ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
% ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`  ÿ  ÿ
ÿ@
ÿ% ÿ
`ÿA ÿBÿ
`ÿC
`/0ÿ1<0ÿ230?/ÿ2.ÿ4/<ÿ5;ÿ33431ÿ;>6/8'Dÿ
`ÿEÿ


$ÿ(#ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ

 
ÿ  ÿ
`

`ÿÿ ÿ
`% 
ÿ ÿ
ÿ* 
ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`

`ÿÿ  
ÿ ÿ 
F/ÿ10G1ÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ &ÿÿ ÿ
`
`%

ÿ
`
 ÿ ÿ ÿ

 
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`(#ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`
 
`
ÿ  ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ $ÿ
`%
ÿÿ ÿ  ÿ

`ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ &ÿÿ ÿH ÿ
`(
`ÿ
`% ÿF/ÿ.IJ0413.5ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`

 
ÿ
ÿ
`ÿKÿLML&N!"!9"!O"&ÿÿ+ÿ
`
  ÿ ÿ
`;>6ÿ12234356ÿ2.ÿP<34<ÿ.50ÿ0403:0/ÿ6>5/ÿ&ÿ&ÿ&ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿQÿN9&ÿ
`9ÿÿE 
 ÿÿN&ÿ
`DÿÿE 
 ÿÿN&ÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`At sentencing, Clark argued that the enhancement did
`not apply because providing drugs in exchange for guns does
`not fall within the guideline’s text as a matter of law. The
`government responded that the enhancement applied because
`Clark possessed the guns in connection with his sale of drugs,
`even ifhe did not use the guns while selling drugs. The District
`Court
`overruled Clark’s
`objection
`and
`applied
`the
`enhancementpursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
`It concluded that
`“drug trafficking for which one receives guns. .
`. seemsto fit
`
`SPSRY16.
`6 PSR Addendum at1.
`7 PSR Addendum at1.
`
`

`

`ÿ
`
`
 ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ !ÿ"!#ÿ$%&ÿ$$'()*+,-ÿÿ./012ÿ0330/
ÿ
`ÿ445ÿ789:;<:=>:?@ÿA@<ÿB>A@<A9<ÿ?CÿDEF:EGÿ
`HÿI1ÿ.J1ÿ0ÿKJ1 ÿJ 1ÿ -ÿL
M
.
ÿNÿ
`O
`O Pÿ0 ÿÿ0QÿKJ1 ÿJ 1ÿ
`-ÿL
M
.
ÿNÿ
`R ÿ0 ÿ -ÿ
`L
M
.
ÿNÿOST
`0
ÿÿUÿ1Qÿÿ QÿÿI1ÿ.V#*'ÿ
` 1310 ÿ ÿÿM   WÿXJ/ 
RÿÿUÿ1Qÿÿ
`033/0 ÿ ÿÿ   Wÿ 0  ÿ 1ÿ0Jÿ ÿ
`1
Yÿÿÿ
`4445ÿZ:;=8;;:?@ÿ
`L
M
M
X
ÿNÿ
`
`
 ÿ31Qÿ 1ÿ0ÿ J1[/Q/ÿ
`   Wÿ 0  ÿ$ÿ!ÿ\$\"ÿ]V'\ÿ#ÿ^''''\ÿ
`0 _ÿ 101ÿ1ÿ0J  ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ0 1ÿ / _ÿ
`  (, ÿÿ./012ÿ01WJÿ0ÿÿI1ÿ.J1ÿ11ÿ ÿ
`033/_ Wÿÿ 0  ÿ0Jÿÿ 1ÿJÿ 1ÿ
`3ÿ0ÿ 101ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ0 1ÿ / _ÿ  
ÿÿ
`U/ÿ`%"#aÿ\\ÿÿ]V',ÿ"ÿ$#"#bÿ ÿ  ÿÿ0 1ÿ
` / _Pÿÿ]3,ÿ0ÿ 101ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ0 1ÿ
`ÿ
`-ÿc33d
ÿ S
ÿÿHÿJ1ÿ0/ÿ /JPÿ_ÿ0ÿ313 10 ÿ ÿ
`ÿQ Pÿ0ÿ./012ÿ0ÿ10 ÿÿ2 ÿ0ÿÿ1[/ÿÿ
`WJ ÿÿJ_1ÿÿJ/ÿ3ÿÿ ÿ  ÿÿ
`0 1ÿ / _ÿ  
ÿÿeQ1Pÿÿ ÿ ÿ1Qÿ0ÿ
` /J ÿ0Jÿÿ/ÿ0ÿ./012ÿ3ÿ 101ÿ ÿ
`  ÿÿ0 1ÿ / _ÿ  
ÿ
`RÿfghijkÿminijoÿpqÿrknhsPÿO-ÿt
TÿOT PÿOTSÿOÿ.1
ÿ
`Y
`
`
ÿ
` YÿfghijkÿminijoÿpqÿruvwjxjsPÿR ÿt
TÿO- PÿO--ÿOÿ.1
ÿ
`Y
`T
ÿ
`ÿL
M
M
X
ÿNÿ
`
`
 ÿ
`Y
` 
ÿÿÿ
`
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿÿ   ÿ ÿ
`
`
`into the definition of 2K2.1(b)[(6)(B)] when it comesto [‘]in
`connection with another felony offense.[’]’”® Clark appealed.
`
`II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
`
`The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.§
`3231, and we havejurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
`U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review de novo the District Court’s
`interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines.” We review its
`application of the sentencing enhancement
`for abuse of
`discretion.'°
`
`III. Discussion
`
`U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a four-level
`sentencing enhancement if the defendant “used or possessed
`any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony
`offense.”!! Clark argues that the District Court erred in
`applying the enhancement because he neither used nor
`possesseda firearm in connection with another felony offense.
`While Clark did not “use”a firearm in connection with another
`felony, he “possessed” a firearm in connection with another
`
`8 Appx. 67. The court also concluded, by a preponderance of
`the evidence, that Clark had reason to know that he re-sold the
`guns to buyers who would possess them in connection with
`another felony offense. However, we need not review that
`conclusion because wehold that Clark possessed firearms in
`connection with another felony offense.
`° United States v. Adair, 38 FAth 341, 347 (3d Cir. 2022).
`10 United States v. Alowemer, 96 F4th 386, 388 (3d Cir. 2024).
`1 U.S.8.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2021).
`
`

`

`the Supreme Court
`v. Watson,
`In United States
`addressed whether a defendant who provides drugs
`in
`exchangefor a firearm “uses”the firearm inrelation to a felony
`under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).!2 That statute did not define
`the term “use,” so the Court relied on its “everyday meaning”
`to hold that an individual does not “use” a firearm if they
`receive it in a trade for drugs.'? In contrast, a defendant does
`
`ÿ
`ÿ  ÿÿ
`
ÿ  ÿÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`  ÿ
`ÿ ÿ   ÿ
`ÿÿ !"ÿ$%&ÿ'()ÿ*+,-.ÿ ÿ/%!- !0ÿ12ÿ3422567142ÿ8179ÿ
`24795:ÿ;5<42=ÿ
`ÿ
`>ÿ?@ABCDÿFBGBCHÿIJÿKGBHL@ÿ ÿM
  ÿ
ÿ
`
`
` 
`ÿN  ÿÿ
`  
`ÿNÿ O
` ÿ
`
ÿÿ
` P ÿ ÿÿ  ÿQRSTSUÿ ÿ  ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ
`

` ÿWXÿYMÿZÿ[\]^_^W_^`_W\ÿÿÿ
 ÿ
`
`ÿÿ
`  ÿ
`abTÿaTcdÿQRSTeUÿSfÿabTÿgfRcaÿcThiTjÿfkÿiaSÿQ O 
`ÿ  Uÿ
`afÿbfhjÿablaÿlkÿikjimijRlhÿjfTSÿkfaÿQRSTUÿlÿnicTlcdÿinÿabToÿ
`pCqCAICÿÿÿÿ 
` ÿ ÿ
`
Wrÿÿ>ÿ ÿÿ
`  
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`W\ÿ?@ABCDÿFBGBCHÿIJÿKGBHL@ÿss\ÿYMÿ ]ÿ tÿ^\uuX_ÿÿM ÿ
`[\]^_^W_^`_ÿ O
` ÿ ÿÿ 
`ÿ   ÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿNÿ
`
 ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ  ÿÿO  ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ  ÿ
`  ÿ^

` ÿÿ  ÿÿO  ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ
`  ÿ  ÿÿ O
` ÿ ÿÿ 
`ÿ
`
 ÿÿ
`ÿvÿ ÿ
 ÿÿÿ
` 
`ÿ
` ÿ
` 
ÿN ÿ ÿ
` O _ÿ ÿNÿ ÿ
` ÿÿv ÿ  

`ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
` ÿY
`ÿM ÿ
 ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ  ÿ ÿ
`Nÿÿ
  ÿÿÿ
ÿ  ÿ  ÿ
`ÿ  ÿÿÿÿÿ
`WXÿYMÿZÿ[\]^_^W_^`_ÿ
`WrÿKGBHL@ÿss\ÿYMÿÿ [ÿwQxbTÿyO  ÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿz
 {ÿÿ  ÿÿvÿ  O ÿÿÿÿv  ÿ
` ÿv
ÿÿ ÿ  ÿN

`ÿÿ`ÿvÿNÿ 
` ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ ÿv ÿÿ vÿ
`ÿÿ
 ÿ ÿ ÿv
ÿ ÿ
`N

`ÿ O ÿ
ÿNÿNÿÿ  ÿ
ÿN
`ÿ
` ÿ   ÿÿ ÿvÿRSTjÿabTÿ|clkfhl}U~ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ 
`
`felony offense: drug trafficking. Therefore, the District Court
`properly applied the enhancement.
`
`A. Clark Did Not “Use” a Firearm in Connection with
`Another Felony
`
`2 United States v. Watson, 552 U.S. 74, 76 (2008). Section
`924(c)(1)(A) provides for an enhanced sentencefor:
`any person who, during and in relation to
`
`any crime violence ordrug_traffickingof
`
`crime (including acrime of violence or drug
`trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced
`punishment if committed by the use of a deadly
`or dangerous weapon or device) for which the
`person may be prosecuted in a court of
`the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or
`who,in furtherance of any such crime, possesses
`a firearm....
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
`13 Watson, 552 U.S. at 79 (“The Government may say that a
`person ‘uses’ a firearm simply by receiving it in a barter
`transaction, but no one else would. A boy whotrades an apple
`to get a granola bar is sensibly said to use the apple, but one
`would never guess which way this commerceactually flowed
`from hearing that the boy used the granola.”).
`
`

`

`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ!"ÿ #$%ÿÿ
`#&'(ÿÿÿ)*
`+,ÿ-.-/0123143153ÿ6+ÿ,+ ÿ6
`,ÿ 7ÿ%8ÿ9ÿ
`:%8ÿ#ÿ8ÿÿ;:ÿ$ÿ8ÿÿ&ÿÿ<8ÿÿ%ÿ%8%ÿ
`;8"  ÿ=>ÿÿ?8#ÿÿ@ABCD7ÿ9ÿ8: ÿÿ8ÿ 8%ÿ8ÿ
` ÿÿÿ# ÿEÿFGF&'H=IHJIHKIÿ%;:>ÿ=>ÿ!"$ÿÿ
`ÿÿ=ÿL!$&ÿÿM#%7ÿ?:Nÿ6
`6ÿ,+ ÿ ÿ%ÿÿ
`!8!8ÿ9ÿ #$ÿ %=#8ÿ=% ÿ8:>ÿ8ÿ%ÿ!;ÿ8ÿ
`ÿ%ÿÿL!$ÿ8ÿÿ #$%&ÿÿ
`OPÿRSTUVÿWXYYZYYZ[ÿTÿ\]UZTU^ÿ]_ÿRX__Z`a]X_ÿb]acÿd_XacZUÿ
`\ZSX_eÿfggZ_YZÿ
`ÿ
`h:8#$ÿij kÿ6
`6ÿ,+ ÿ ÿÿ
` 
ÿ# ÿÿ
`$# :%7ÿEÿFGF&'H=IHJIHKIÿ%::ÿ;;:%ÿÿÿ;8%%%% ÿ>ÿ
`ÿ&ÿ&ÿ&ÿ
`,ÿ*+,,*
`+,ÿl
` ÿ,+  ÿ j+,ÿ+ ,/ÿÿ?:Nÿ
` 8%ÿ8ÿ %;#ÿÿÿ;8%%%% ÿÿ%ÿÿ!" ÿ
`8ÿÿ%9m;#!%7ÿ%8ÿÿ8:>ÿ%%#ÿ:ÿ8ÿ#%ÿ8ÿ ! ÿ
`%ÿ9ÿÿ  ÿ%8ÿÿ!8!8ÿ9ÿ8ÿ:8>ÿ
`8%&'nÿÿoÿ!8!:# ÿÿÿ  &ÿ
`ÿ
`'(ÿpÿrÿÿsJÿH!$ÿptBuÿrÿvDBÿpBABC7ÿnw ÿx&y&ÿFFzÿ
`H'{{zII&ÿ
`'nÿ?:Nÿ 8%ÿ8ÿ %;#ÿÿ%ÿ #$ÿ %=#8ÿ|#:%ÿ%ÿ
`,+  ÿ j+,/ÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿÿ
` 

`
`

`

`Clark argues that the enhancement only applies to a
`guns-for-drugs exchangeif the defendantprovided the gun, not
`if the defendant received the gun.
`In United States v. Hester,
`we construed the phrase “in connection with another felony
`offense” to mean the “firearm .. . facilitated, or had the
`potential of facilitating, another felony offense.”'® According
`to Clark, it would be unnatural to say that receipt of a gun in a
`drugs-for-guns exchange facilitated that exchange, so he did
`not possess a gun in connection with drug trafficking. Put
`differently, Clark asks us to read a similar directionality into
`the phrase “possessed .
`.
`. in connection with” as we read into
`the term “used.” Clark accords too much weight to Hester, and
`wedecline to adopthis interpretation of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
 ÿ
ÿ
   ÿ ÿ 
`ÿ ÿÿ
`
`
`ÿ 
  ÿÿ
ÿ   ÿÿ
ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ   ÿ ÿ
ÿ !ÿÿ" ÿ#$%ÿ'%(%)ÿ*ÿ+)%ÿ
`, ÿ
`  ÿ
ÿ

` ÿ- ÿ   ÿ,
ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
`
` .ÿ/0ÿ2345ÿ/63ÿ- ÿ!ÿ!ÿ!ÿ   ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`  ÿÿ    ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
` !.78ÿÿ9 ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ, ÿ: ÿ   ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
 ÿ   ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`
`
`ÿ 
  ÿ   ÿ
 ÿ 
  ÿ
`ÿ
ÿÿ
`  ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿÿ ÿ ÿ   ÿ,
ÿÿ  !ÿÿ; ÿ
`  ÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿ     ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ

` ÿ-<0==3== ÿ!ÿ!ÿ!ÿ ÿ   ÿ,
.ÿ4=ÿ>3ÿ ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ ÿ-?=3@.ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
ÿ, 
ÿ ÿ+)%ÿ ÿ
`, ÿ   ÿ ÿ ÿ

`ÿ    ÿÿAÿBCB!7D:ED8EDFE!ÿÿ
`ÿG
ÿÿ 
` ÿ ÿ#$%ÿ'%(%)ÿ*ÿH((ÿ 
`ÿ
`ÿ
  !7Iÿÿ" ÿH((ÿ
`ÿ
 ÿ
ÿ   ÿJ ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ 
  ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`  ÿ ÿ  ÿ ÿ
`
   ÿ  ÿAÿBCB!7D:ED8EDFE!7KÿÿL ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`MN=/ONP/ÿP0?O/Q=ÿR ÿ ÿ  ÿ    ÿ
 ÿ-/63ÿ
`
   ÿ
`
 ÿ ÿ,
ÿ
`
`
`
` ÿÿ
ÿ ÿ
`  
`ÿÿ

`ÿ
ÿ  ÿÿ    ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`
` !.7 ÿÿS63O3ÿ>4=ÿ-50ÿM0?T/.ÿ/64/ÿU4V4OO0Q=ÿP05M?P/ÿ ÿ
`
 ÿ
`  ÿT3P4?=3ÿ-/63ÿMO?WÿMN=/ONT?/N05ÿ>0?XMÿ50/ÿ64V3ÿ
`ÿ
`78ÿ#$%ÿ'%(%)ÿ*ÿ+)%ÿ 7YÿZ![ÿIKÿK ÿD[ÿ!ÿBY7KEÿ
`D   ÿ\   ÿ ÿ   ÿ E!ÿ
`7Iÿ#$%ÿ'%(%)ÿ*ÿH((ÿ]I8ÿZ![ÿ7KKÿ7 IÿD[ÿ!ÿBYYIE!ÿ
`7KÿH((ÿ   ÿ
ÿ  
`
`ÿ  ÿ ÿAÿ
`BCB!7D:ED8EDFEÿ,

ÿ,
`ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿAÿBCB!7D:ED^E!ÿÿZÿ
`
ÿ
` ÿÿÿ  
`
`ÿ
ÿ 
`ÿ ÿ 
  : !ÿ
`7 ÿH((ÿ]I8ÿZ![ÿ ÿ7 IÿD  ÿE!ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Rather, our decision in United States v. Navarro dictates
`our holding.'’”
`In Navarro, as here, the defendant provided
`drugs in exchangefor a gun, and the district court applied an
`enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).'® We affirmed the
`district court’s judgment on appeal, explaining that “the
`enhancement should apply when possession of the firearm
`facilitates, or has the potential of facilitating,
`the other
`offense.”!° There was “no doubt” that Navarro’s conduct met
`that standard because “the drug distribution would not have
`
`16 United States v. Hester, 910 F.3d 78, 89 (3d Cir. 2018)
`(internal quotation and citation omitted).
`7 United States v. Navarro, 476 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 2007).
`18 Navarro concerned the predecessor guideline to §
`2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which was codified then at § 2K2.1(b)(5). For
`the purposeofour analysis, the guidelines are interchangeable.
`19 Navarro, 476 F.3d at 197 (cleaned up).
`
`

`

`ÿ
`   ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ !ÿ"ÿÿ#$ÿ
`ÿ%ÿ &#ÿ'( )*ÿ +!"ÿÿ,-.-//0ÿÿ"1ÿ(1"+ ÿ
`+112ÿ(3$ÿÿ4"ÿ5 67ÿÿ +!ÿÿ,-.-//0ÿ (2ÿ1"ÿ"ÿ
`
` 
` ÿ ÿÿ9ÿ: *ÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿ;<=>?ÿ.@ÿ
`AB=>CDÿ;>->CEÿÿÿF!G ÿ'1! ÿ( ÿ &#2ÿ"ÿ
`H->E0B$ ÿÿI!ÿ'( )ÿ 2ÿ,-.-//0*ÿ
` 
` ÿ ÿ;<=>?ÿ11ÿ
`#(1(J$ÿÿI1ÿ;<=>?ÿ"2ÿH->E0Bÿ#1"# "2ÿÿ""+ÿ16ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿKD@ÿÿL! ÿ1(2"+ÿ"ÿ,-.-//0ÿÿ(1ÿ#1""ÿ3ÿÿ
`2#1"ÿ16ÿM (ÿ1 ÿ#1! ÿ16ÿGG($ÿÿ;CCÿC@N@7ÿAB=>CDÿ
`;>->CEÿ.@ÿO-/DBC/7ÿPÿQ$R2ÿST7ÿ ÿU2ÿ' $ÿ Vÿ
`WX 
` ÿ ÿ ÿYÿ ÿ 
` 
` ÿ ÿ ÿYÿÿÿÿD0CEÿ
`  ÿ ÿ 
`Z
` ÿ ÿ
`ZZY Zÿ ZÿW 
`ÿ
`ÿ 
`Y
` Z[ÿ
`U\!1"+ÿAB=>CDÿ;>->CEÿ.@ÿ]/CDC/=^_7ÿ`PÿQ$R2ÿTa`7ÿTP`ÿUPÿ
`' $ÿaVVVbÿAB=>CDÿ;>->CEÿ.@ÿc-/=dd0efg-d-7ÿT RÿQ$R2ÿh7ÿSPÿ
`ijÿWiiÿ:
`ÿjkil[ÿWXm
`
`Yÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿn Yÿ ÿ
`2 !+ÿ31!(2ÿ#1"!ÿG11"ÿ"ÿ#1""#1"ÿ3ÿÿ2 !+ÿ
` [ÿ
` ÿ:Z o*ÿ Yÿ ÿ ÿ ZZ pqÿÿWi[ÿr ÿÿ
`F!G ÿ'1! ÿ2#22ÿH->E0B7ÿÿ(2ÿ"ÿ;<=>?ÿ.@ÿAB=>CDÿ
`;>->CE7ÿahÿs$F$ÿR7ÿaÿU SSRV7ÿÿÿ26"2"ÿ31ÿ
` 
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿn Yÿ ÿYÿXtuÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
`UVÿ,-.-//0ÿ#2ÿ;<=>?ÿ ÿ Zÿ ÿX 
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`6  ÿ6#(ÿÿ2 !+ÿ "#1"ÿ3"ÿÿ6  ÿ Mÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ,-.-//07ÿ`TPÿQ$R2ÿÿ ST$ÿÿURVÿ,-.-//0ÿ
`!2ÿÿ;<=>?*ÿZ Y
`ÿ Z
`ÿY Zÿ ÿpÿÿ
`26"2"ÿG 1M2ÿ1 ÿ #Mÿÿ+!"ÿ"ÿÿ+!"v61 v2 !+ÿ
` "#1"$ÿÿU`VÿÿF!G ÿ'1! ÿ &#2ÿÿw"1"ÿ16ÿ
`;<=>?ÿ1ÿ#ÿ"ÿ3#ÿÿ26"2"ÿ #Mÿÿ+!"7ÿ1ÿ
`,-.-//0ÿ21ÿ"1ÿ! MM$ÿÿxÿ2#!2ÿ=By/-7ÿ'( )ÿ 2ÿ
`,-.-//0$ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ

`
`occurred if Navarro had not possessed the firearm.””? The
`sameis true in this case.
`
`Wereject Clark’s argument that Navarro is no longer
`good law.
`In brief, he argues that Navarro relied on an
`interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v.
`United States that
`the Supreme Court
`later
`rejected in
`Watson.”' But Clark reads Navarro’s citation to Smith too
`closely. Both Smith and Watson concerned the meaningofthe
`
`20 Td. Our holding in Navarro is also consistent with the
`decisions of several other courts of appeals. See e.g., United
`States
`v. Gardner, 602 F.3d 97,
`102 (2d Cir. 2010)
`(“possession of a gun as consideration for some drugs.. . does
`promote or facilitate that illegal sale” (emphasis in original)
`(quoting United States v. Frederick, 406 F.3d 754, 764 (6th
`Cir. 2005))); United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 96
`n.12 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Receiving a firearm in exchange for
`drugs would constitute possession in connection with a drug
`offense”).
`(1) Before the
`1 Clark’s argument proceeds as follows:
`Supreme Court decided Watson, it held in Smith v. United
`States, 508 U.S. 223, 225 (1993),
`that a defendant who
`providesa firearm in exchange for drugs “use[s]”that firearm.
`(2) Navarro cited Smith to conclude that “possession of a
`firearm facilitates a drug transaction when that firearm serves
`as an item ofa trade.” Navarro, 476 F.3d at 197.
`(3) Navarro
`assumed that Smith’s logic applied regardless of whether the
`defendant provides or receives the gun in a guns-for-drugs
`transaction.
`(4) The Supreme Court rejected the extension of
`Smith to cases in which the defendant receives the gun, so
`Navarro does not survive. As discussed infra, Clark misreads
`Navarro.
`
`10
`
`

`

`word “use” in the context of a drugs-for-firearms exchange.”
`In contrast, Navarro concerned whatit means to “possess” a
`firearm “in connection with another felony.” “Use” and
`“possess” are distinct
`terms, and we do not read them
`interchangeably.
`It may be unnatural to say that receipt of a
`gun is “use” of that gun, but
`the same is not
`true of
`“possession.” A defendant who received a gun in a trade
`plainly possessed that gun.
`
`Clark also reads the phrase “in connection with” too
`narrowly.
`In United States v. Loney, we held that the phrase
`“in connection with” should be “construed expansively”so that
`it may apply to “a wide range of relationships between the
`firearm possession andthe other felony offense.”’* Asa result,
`we expressly declined to require a causal nexus between
`firearm possession and the secondary felony.”> Were-affirmed
`that
`interpretation in United States v. Perez, where we
`explained that the phrase “in connection with” merely requires
`“somerelationship or association’ betweenthe firearm and the
`other felony, which could be ‘a causal or logical relation or
`other type of relationship.’””° Indeed, even the mere “potential
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ 
`ÿ ÿÿ ÿ !"#$$ÿÿ
`%!ÿ!&&'ÿ()*)++,ÿ!!-ÿÿ
ÿ.
` ÿ ÿ/
` ÿÿ
`ÿ!ÿ!!&!ÿ0& ÿ!& ÿ
`1 23 $4ÿÿ5
` ÿ ÿ
`/
` ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
`. 6ÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`.ÿ
`!& !"789#ÿÿ%&ÿ9ÿ7ÿ:!!&:8ÿ&ÿ9ÿ& &ÿ;&ÿÿÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ 6ÿ<ÿ& ÿÿÿ!&ÿ&:ÿÿ
`/
`
# ÿÿ=ÿ-!-!&ÿ0 ÿ>-ÿÿ":!ÿ!ÿÿ&-ÿ
`;8!89ÿ;-ÿ& &ÿ":!#ÿÿÿ
`ÿ?8@ÿ8ÿ-ÿ
`ÿ/
`ÿ
ÿ
`
ÿ
 ÿ ÿ
`!089#ÿÿ%!ÿABCDEFÿHD)DEIÿ*JÿK,BEL'ÿ0ÿ 8-ÿ& &ÿ& ÿ; ÿ
`
ÿ
`
ÿ
 ÿ  1ÿ<
`ÿ 
`ÿ
`/
M
`12 ÿ ÿÿ
`
ÿ.2ÿ//12ÿ ÿÿ

`ÿ 
`ÿ ÿ
`1

/ ÿ<
`
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`

`.ÿ/
`
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ 
`ÿ
`1 2ÿ 
`
`3 $Nÿÿ=ÿÿ:8&'ÿ
`0ÿ;89ÿ-8!-ÿ&ÿO:ÿÿ:8ÿ!:ÿ7&0!ÿ
`ÿ;!ÿ!-ÿ& ÿ!-9ÿ8!9#$PÿÿQÿ-ÿ
`& &ÿ!&;&&!ÿ!ÿABCDEFÿHD)DEIÿ*JÿRE+ES'ÿ0 ÿ0ÿ
`;8!-ÿ& &ÿ& ÿ; ÿ
ÿ
`
ÿ
 ÿ.
`
`12ÿ
`T

` ÿ
`U .
`ÿ
`1

/ÿ ÿ 

Vÿ<
`
`
` ÿ
`ÿ

`.ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` 
`ÿ
`1 26ÿ
ÿ 1ÿ<
`ÿUÿ 1ÿ ÿ1 
1ÿ
`1
ÿ ÿ
` 
`ÿ2/
`ÿ ÿ
`1

/3V $WÿÿX 
`
`6ÿ
`M
` ÿ
`ÿ.
`
`ÿ/ 
` 
1ÿ
`ÿ
`$$ÿHEEÿHYCDZ'ÿP[\ÿ]#^#ÿ&ÿ$$_`ÿa)DI,B'ÿPP$ÿ]#^#ÿ&ÿ_W#ÿ
`$4ÿ()*)++,'ÿN_Wÿb#4-ÿ&ÿ c_#ÿÿ
`$NÿABCDEFÿHD)DEIÿ*JÿK,BEL'ÿ$ cÿb#4-ÿ$\ 'ÿ$\Nÿd4-ÿ?#ÿ$[[[e#ÿÿÿ
`$PÿfFJÿÿghiÿjk
` /

`ÿ
`ÿ

`ÿM

`2ÿ ÿ
`1

/ÿ>-ÿ
`<2ÿ
`ÿ 
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿ/
`ÿU
ÿ
`
ÿ
6Vÿl
`2ÿ
` ÿ
`& &ÿ0ÿ!0ÿ&ÿ!!"ÿ!-ÿ-;&ÿÿ&&ÿO:!"ÿ& ÿ
` M
` .
` ÿ ÿ/ M
`ÿU .
`ÿ 1ÿ
` Vÿ<
`
`
` ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ
`& ÿ8!9'ÿÿ&!--ÿ ÿ9ÿ0ÿ!&ÿ&-ÿ!ÿ ÿ#ÿQÿ
`-1

`ÿ ÿ /ÿl
`2V ÿ/ /
`ÿ
` 3 m3ÿ
`$WÿABCDEFÿHD)DEIÿ*JÿRE+ES'ÿPÿb#N& ÿ4c['ÿ4c_ÿd4-ÿ?#ÿ$[$ eÿ
`dO:&!"ÿK,BEL'ÿ$ cÿb#4-ÿ&ÿ$\Ne`ÿIEEÿ)nI,ÿCFJÿ&ÿ4c\oppÿjq
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`22 See Smith, 508 U.S. at 227; Watson, 552 U.S.at 76.
`23 Navarro, 476 F.3d at 197.
`4 United States v. Loney, 219 F.3d 281, 284 (3d Cir. 2000).
`25 Id. at 285 (“Despite the wide variety ofrelationships covered
`by the usage of the phrase ‘in connection with,’ Loney urges
`that we narrow its meaning and adopt a test requiring the
`governmentto prove ‘some causal nexus’ between the gun and
`the felony, a standard he says wasnotsatisfied in his case. We
`decline to adopt Loney’s proposedtest.”).
`26 United States v. Perez, 5 F.A4th 390, 397 (3d Cir. 2021)
`(quoting Loney, 219 F.3d at 284); see also id. at 398-99 (“We
`
`11
`
`

`

`ÿ
` ÿ  ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ !"!ÿ!ÿÿ"##$ÿÿÿ"#%ÿ#&'ÿ!ÿ
`#&(ÿ#"%"()ÿÿ !"!ÿ*#ÿÿ'!("%'ÿ#'"!ÿ!ÿÿ
`#"%"(+,ÿÿ-ÿ"ÿ #%"'.ÿ/ÿ0'#ÿ"+ÿÿ
`ÿ-&)ÿ0'#ÿ !ÿÿ"##$ÿÿ#%"1ÿ"ÿ
`2%(ÿ!#ÿ#&(ÿ"ÿ%!%"!ÿ/"ÿ!#ÿ'!.ÿ
`!3#&(ÿ#"%"(3ÿÿ%$ÿ '"+ÿ
`ÿ
`456ÿ
`8!#ÿÿ*!1ÿ#!)ÿ/ÿ/"''ÿ"#$ÿÿ9"#"%ÿ
`: 
`;ÿ<=
>
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ?==ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ@ 
` ?;ÿ
` ==ÿ ÿABCDEÿ
`ÿFDGHÿ"ÿÿ%!##%ÿ!ÿ*%&ÿÿI%"(ÿ
`0!$$""!ÿ"'ÿ! ÿ"+ Jÿ
`ÿKLMLNNB)ÿOPÿ8+Qÿÿ RÿS%""!ÿ!$"T+ÿ
`,ÿUVWÿS%""(ÿABCDE)ÿ Rÿ8+Qÿÿ,)ÿÿ!'"(ÿÿYZ[#ÿ
`"ÿ#)ÿÿ ÿ\ÿ ÿ= \
`ÿ
`
`ÿ]^ ;ÿ?  ÿ
`!ÿÿ"##$ÿ&#"(ÿÿ#&(ÿ#%"!ÿ%"'"ÿÿ
`!+ Jÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ 
`
`
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`are further persuadedthat the ‘relationship’ standard in Loney
`and West
`is
`the correct one because the Sentencing
`Commissionitself adoptedit.”).
`27 Navarro, 476 F.3d at 197(citation omitted).
`8 Td. (citing Loney, 219 F.3d at 287, and holdingthat “[uJnder
`this standard, there can be no doubt that Navarro’s possession
`of the firearm during the drug transaction facilitated the
`offense.”).
`
`12
`
`of facilitating”the other felony offense is sufficient.?”7 When a
`defendant takes possession of a firearm as a direct result of
`drug trafficking, that possession bears a logical relation to the
`trafficking.”® That is precisely what Clark did.
`
`Thus, Clark possessed the firearms he received in
`exchange for drugs
`in connection with another
`felony
`offense—drugtrafficking—and the enhancementapplies.
`
`IV.
`
`For the above reasons, we will affirm the District
`Court’s judgment of sentence.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket