United States v. Walker, No. 17-1680 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
On remand from resentencing, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s application of the USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, and remanded with instructions to resentence defendant without the enhancement. The court explained that, because the other felony offense in this case was mere possession of drugs, the district court must affirmatively make a finding that the weapon facilitated the drug offense for the enhancement to apply.
The court held that the government failed to meet its burden to show more than a generalized connection or that the weapons were connected to a different felony offense. In this case, the resentencing record did not support the enhancement and it was clear error to find the firearm facilitated the possession where the weapons were in the trunk and the user quantity of cocaine was inside the car.
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Shepherd, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - resentencing. Following the government's concession that Walker was not an armed career criminal, the government sought and the district court imposed a four-level enhancement under USSG sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. Because the other felony offense in this case is mere possession of drugs, district court must affirmatively make a finding that the weapon facilitated the drug offense for the enhancement to apply; here the resentencing record does not support the enhancement and it was clear error to find the firearm facilitated the possession, as the weapons were in the trunk and the user quantity of cocaine was inside the car. The government failed to meet its burden to show more than a generalized connection or that the weapons were connected to a different felony offense. Case is remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.
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.