United States v. Michael LeBeau, No. 22-1091 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Stras, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm in connection with defendant's drug offense. [ August 08, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1091 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael Jonathan LeBeau Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: May 9, 2022 Filed: August 9, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before STRAS, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael LeBeau received an 84-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Although he challenges the findings underlying a two-level enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon, we affirm. When law enforcement raided LeBeau’s home, they found drugs, plastic baggies, a digital scale, and a Smith & Wesson revolver. The district court1 found that LeBeau possessed a gun “in connection with” his drug business. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Our task is to figure out whether this finding was clearly erroneous. See id. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A) (noting that the dangerous-weapon enhancement “should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense”); see also United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (applying clear-error review). Establishing a connection poses a “low bar for the government.” United States v. Garcia, 703 F.3d 471, 476 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Here, the government did it through testimony that “LeBeau had held a black pistol to [a witness’s] head” after a drug deal fell through and that he frequently traded “firearms in exchange [for] meth.” Moreover, a “minimum of 11 different sources” stated that LeBeau was dealing drugs out of the same house where he kept guns. Under these circumstances, it did not require much for the district court to “infer[]” that the guns and drugs were “somehow connected.” United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Garcia, 703 F.3d at 477. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
