United States of America v. Nathan John Walz

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3716
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Nathan John Walz
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: October 25, 2024
Filed: December 31, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Nathan John Walz guilty of possession with intent to distribute
five or more grams of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B),
possession of a firearm as a felon, see 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A).

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
The district court1 sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. Walz appeals,
arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
Because Walz’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence, we affirm.
On November 1, 2022, Minneapolis Police Officers responded to a 911 call
reporting someone slumped over in a vehicle at an intersection in South
Minneapolis. There officers found Walz alone and unconscious behind the wheel of
a running car registered in his name. Officer Davids secured a handgun located next
to Walz on the center console, which was loaded and ready to fire, while Officers
Wittrock and Randall placed Walz under arrest. They discovered two baggies of
suspected narcotics in his pockets. A search of his car revealed the following: more
suspected narcotics, several cellphones, a box of unused small baggies, a digital
scale, a hidden “trap” compartment with an empty pistol holster, and a magnetized
black case full of suspected narcotics. In total, officers seized twenty-eight grams
of methamphetamine—approximately 140 doses. The FBI later extracted over 384
pages of text messages from the phones evidencing Walz’s sales of not only
methamphetamine, but also cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, and marijuana. Walz was
indicted on two federal drug offenses and a federal firearm offense. A jury found
Walz guilty of all three offenses. Walz appeals, arguing that the district court erred
in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
We review de novo the denial of Walz’s motion for judgment of acquittal
based on the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090,
1093 (8th Cir. 2016). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty
verdict” and “grant[] all reasonable inferences that are supported by that
evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 745 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2014). “We will
reverse the conviction only if . . . we conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could
find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Proffit, 49 F.3d 404, 406
(8th Cir. 1995).
1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
Walz first argues that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to
conclude that he intended to distribute the methamphetamine in his possession. See
United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160, 1167 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting “intent to
distribute” is an element of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)). Walz does not dispute that he
possessed methamphetamine but argues that it was for his own personal use, not for
sale. But at trial, the Government presented ample evidence establishing intent to
distribute. The officers seized greater than typical user quantities of
methamphetamine (twenty-eight grams at ninety-four percent purity). See United
States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708, 715, 721 (8th Cir. 2012) (permitting an inference of
an intent to distribute where the defendant knowingly possessed 8.6 grams of
methamphetamine at eighty percent purity). And Special Agent (“SA”) Flanagan
testified that the baggies, digital scale, magnetic box, trap compartment for hiding
contraband, multiple phones, and firearm found in Walz’s car are all tools of the
drug trade. See United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733, 736-737 (8th Cir. 2002)
(intent to distribute satisfied where defendant possessed packaging material, cash,
and 19.26 grams of crack cocaine). The jury also saw incriminating text messages
between Walz and his customers, some sent within only three weeks of his arrest.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient
evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Walz intended to distribute the
methamphetamine. Therefore, we find no error in the district court’s denial of the
motion for judgment of acquittal on this count.
We next address the argument that Walz did not knowingly possess the
firearm discovered in his car. See United States v. Garrett, 648 F.3d 618, 622 (8th
Cir. 2011) (listing knowing possession of a firearm as an element of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). Although Walz challenged the sufficiency of the evidence
regarding the drug-related offenses in his acquittal motion, he did not contest this
particular offense before the district court. Accordingly, we review for plain error.
United States v. Garbacz, 33 F.4th 459, 467 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing for plain
error where the appellant forfeited the argument by failing to make it in a motion for
judgment of acquittal). We will reverse only if, among other things, the court

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
committed a “clear and obvious” error. See United States v. Chastain, 979 F.3d 586,
592 (8th Cir. 2020).
Walz contends there was insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly
possessed the firearm found next to him in the car because he was intoxicated and
unaware of its presence. That argument fails. Forensics identified Walz’s DNA on
the gun and officers found the gun next to him on the center console. The
Government also presented evidence establishing that Walz had constructive
possession over the firearm because he “ha[d] dominion over the premises where the
firearm . . . [was] located.” See United States v. Coleman, 909 F.3d 925, 928, 932
(8th Cir. 2018) (possession may be constructive for 922(g)(1) purposes.) Walz was
alone and behind the steering wheel of the car registered in his name where the gun
was found. See United States v. Chatmon, 742 F.3d 350, 352-53 (8th Cir. 2014)
(finding constructive possession where defendant was the driver and sole occupant
of a rental vehicle). And pictures presented at trial showing piles of Walz’s clothing
in the car also suggested he was living in it. See id. at 353 (explaining constructive
possession is supported where vehicle contained other personal possessions
belonging to defendant). Accordingly, Walz has not shown that the district court
committed an error—plain or otherwise—in denying his motion for judgment of
acquittal on this count.
Finally, Walz argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of
possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The Government had to “prove a nexus between [Walz’s]
possession of the firearm and the drug crime.” See United States v. Goodrich, 739
F.3d 1091, 1098 (8th Cir. 2014). Here, the gun was “quickly accessible” and “in
close proximity to the drugs” found in Walz’s vehicle. See id. And SA Flanagan
testified that drug traffickers often use guns to protect their narcotics and sale
proceeds and to collect debts owed by customers. See id. (expert testimony
regarding firearm use in connection with drug trafficking supports § 924(c)(1)(A)
conviction). A reasonable jury could infer from the evidence presented that Walz

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
possessed a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Therefore, the district court
did not err in denying Walz’s motion for judgment of acquittal on this count.
Finding no error, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --