United States of America v. Jajuan Antonio Jarmon

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3094
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jajuan Antonio Jarmon
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: August 12, 2026
Filed: August 19, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jajuan Jarmon appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to a drug offense. He maintains that the district court committed procedural
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

error at sentencing when it imposed an enhancement for possessing a weapon under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), as the testimony from one of Jarmon’s drug customers that
he provided a firearm to Jarmon in exchange for the cancellation of a drug debt and
other narcotics was insufficient to support a finding that Jarmon possessed a firearm.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing
the enhancement. See United States v. Savage, 414 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2005)
(appellate court reviews district court’s findings of facts for clear error and its
application of Guidelines de novo). The court did not clearly err in finding that
Jarmon was traded a firearm to help pay a drug debt based on its decision to credit the
customer’s testimony, because the customer’s account was not contradicted by
external evidence or so internally inconsistent as to upset the credibility determination
on appeal. See United States v. Denson, 138 F.4th 1091, 1095 (8th. Cir. 2025) (per
curiam) (district court did not clearly err in finding possession for purposes of
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement based on its decision to credit testimony from witnesses
that defendant possessed firearms despite lack of prior gun conviction and lack of
similar testimony from other witnesses; unless district court’s credibility assessments
are contradicted by extrinsic evidence or internally inconsistent they can virtually
never be clear error); see also United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 931-32 (8th Cir.
2007) (district court did not clearly err in finding weapon possession for purposes of
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement based on purportedly uncorroborated testimony from one
witness that defendant attempted to trade him guns for drugs; district court observed
witness testify and its “assessment of witness credibility is virtually unassailable on
appeal”). Furthermore, the credited testimony provided a legal basis for the
enhancement. See United States v. Martinez, 557 F.3d 597, 600 (8th Cir. 2009)
(trade of gun for excusal of drug debt warrants § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --