USA v. Lamar Middleton
OPINION filed: The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Deborah L. Cook, and Raymond M. Kethledge (AUTHORING), Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0017n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LAMAR L. MIDDLETON,
Jan 11, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: SILER, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Police searched Lamar Middleton’s home and seized
heroin, cocaine, a scale bearing heroin and cocaine residue, a tool designed to compress heroin,
and two loaded Smith & Wesson handguns. They later overheard him lamenting to a friend,
“The police raided my house, man. . . . Swear to God, man. They took—took two straps, about
five Gs, clocks, the blenders, all that s**t.” Middleton pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
heroin and to distribution of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 151 months in prison
after applying an enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with drug
trafficking. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2014).
Middleton argues that the district court erred when it applied the dangerous-weapon
enhancement, though he acknowledges that the enhancement did not affect his ultimate sentence.
See Middleton Br. at 8. The government contends that Middleton’s appeal is therefore moot.
Middleton argues that we should hear his appeal anyway, however, because the enhancement
No. 15-3606, United States v. Middleton
might affect his “eligibility for programs while incarcerated, including his ability to participate in
[a] needed drug program.” Id.
A defendant who challenges his sentence on appeal “bears the initial burden of showing
that the district court relied upon an invalid factor at sentencing, [but] does not have the
additional burden of proving that the invalid factor was determinative in the sentencing
decision.” Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). Thus, we ask first whether the
district court committed clear error when it found that Middleton possessed a dangerous weapon
in connection with his crimes, not whether his sentence would have been different but for the
purported error. See United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510, 514 (6th Cir. 2012).
Under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant convicted of
federal drug-trafficking crimes will receive a two-level sentencing enhancement if he “actually
or constructively possessed” a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense and
cannot rebut the presumption that the weapon was connected to the offense. United States v.
Wheaton, 517 F.3d 350, 367 (6th Cir. 2008). The government can prove constructive possession
by showing that a defendant had “dominion or control over the item itself, or dominion over the
premises where the item is located.” Id. When a gun is found at a defendant’s home, whether
the defendant has roommates does not matter because “the law recognizes joint possession.” Id.
Once the government establishes constructive possession, the enhancement applies unless the
defendant can show that the weapon was not connected to the offense. Id.
Here, police found heroin, cocaine, drug-dealing equipment, and two handguns during a
search at Middleton’s home. Middleton panicked and told a friend that police had seized “two
straps” (guns) and “about five Gs” (grams of heroin) from “my house.” Middleton argues now
that the guns might have belonged to his roommate. But whether the roommate in some formal
No. 15-3606, United States v. Middleton
sense owned the guns is beside the point: Middleton had “dominion over the premises” where
the gun was found, id., and so he cannot hang possession of the guns on his roommate alone.
And he does not argue—he hardly could—that the guns had no connection to the drugtrafficking conspiracy to which Middleton was a party. The district court did not err when it
concluded that Middleton had constructive possession of the guns and that the dangerousweapon enhancement applied.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?