United States of America v. Joe Freeman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1917
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joe Freeman
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: June 9, 2025
Filed: August 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joe Freeman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He stipulated to the following facts. In 2021, police officers
found Freeman asleep in a traffic lane behind the wheel of an idling car. After
waking and arresting him, they searched him and found 37.22 grams of marijuana
in eight plastic baggies and a loaded Ruger LCP .380 pistol in the car’s center
console. Later that year, officers found Freeman asleep behind the wheel with a

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
loaded gun two more times, once with a “roach” in the ashtray and once with two
more marijuana baggies. Freeman had previously been convicted of distribution of
marijuana in 2003 and selling an imitation controlled substance resembling crack
cocaine in 2005.
The presentence report included a four-level enhancement for possessing a
firearm “in connection with another felony offense,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)—
distribution of marijuana. Over Freeman’s objection, the district court1 adopted the
PSR’s findings, determined his guideline sentence was 120 months, and sentenced
him to 90 months in prison.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Freeman possessed the gun
in connection with felony distribution of marijuana.2 See United States v. Mitchell,
963 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir. 2020) (factual findings reviewed for clear error).
Freeman’s intent to distribute may be inferred from the individually packaged
quantities of marijuana and his prior drug distribution offenses. United States v.
Brockman, 924 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2019) (packaging); United States v. Bates,
614 F.3d 490, 495 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior conviction for distribution of user quantity).
And the gun was within arm’s reach of the marijuana. See Brockman, 924 F.3d at
992 (“When the felony offense is drug trafficking, the Guidelines mandate
1 The Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
2 The district court found that Freeman was engaged in a drug-trafficking
felony when it “accept[ed] the [PSR] in its entirety,” which applied the enhancement
based on felony distribution. Because we see no clear error in the court’s distribution
finding, we do not reach the Government’s alternative argument that Freeman
possessed the firearm in connection with felony drug possession. Nor do we reach
Freeman’s argument that the district court failed to make an affirmative finding that
the gun “facilitated” the felony offense—a finding required only when the
underlying offense is simple possession. United States v. Blankenship, 552 F.3d
703, 705 (8th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
application of the enhancement if the ‘firearm is found in close proximity to drugs.’”
(quoting U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B))).
Freeman argues that the undisputed facts are “equally consistent” with
possession for personal use because 37.22 grams is well below the 85 grams now
permitted under Missouri law, see Mo. Const. art. XIV, § 2 (effective Dec. 8, 2022),
and drugs are purchased as well as distributed in individual packages, see United
States v. Woods, 26 F. App’x 448, 450 (6th Cir. 2001). But even if that is true,
“where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder’s choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Almeida-Perez, 549
F.3d 1162, 1173 (8th Cir. 2008).
Affirmed.
___________________________

-- 3 of 3 --