United States v. Ryan et al.

17‐3919(L)
United States v. Ryan et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2
3
August Term, 2018 4
5
(Argued: June 25, 2019 Decided: August 16, 2019) 6
7
Docket Nos. 17‐3919‐cr(L), 17‐3969‐cr(CON), 18‐985‐cr(CON) 8
9
_____________________________________ 10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12
13
Appellee, 14
15
v. 16
17
JAHKEEM RYAN, AKA JAH BANKO, MAURICE WOOD, AKA PIFF, 18
19
Defendants‐Appellants. 20
_____________________________________ 21
22
Before: 23
24
JACOBS, LOHIER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. 25
26
In this appeal, we consider whether a district court errs in applying a four‐ 27
level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to a defendant who sells a 28
firearm and drugs to a buyer in a single transaction or to a buyer who the 29
defendant has reason to believe is a drug dealer. We hold that a district court 30
may apply the enhancement in either situation and accordingly AFFIRM the 31
District Court’s judgment with respect to Maurice Wood. The consolidated 32
appeal of Jahkeem Ryan is AFFIRMED in a simultaneously filed summary order. 33
34
PAUL D. S ILVER , Assistant United States 35
Attorney, for Grant C. Jaquith, United 36

-- 1 of 8 --

2
States Attorney for the Northern District of 1
New York, Albany, NY, for Appellee United 2
States of America. 3
4
TODD G REGORY MONAHAN, Schenectady, 5
NY, for Defendant‐Appellant Jahkeem Ryan. 6
7
K EVIN A. L UIBRAND, Luibrand Law Firm, 8
PLLC, Latham, NY, for Defendant‐Appellant 9
Maurice Wood. 10
LOHIER, Circuit Judge: 11
Maurice Wood appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court 12
for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) sentencing him principally to a 13
term of imprisonment of fifty‐seven months.1 This opinion addresses Wood’s 14
challenge to the District Court’s application of a four‐level enhancement under 15
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which, as noted, 16
provides for an enhancement if the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or 17
ammunition in connection with another felony offense” or if the defendant 18
“possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or 19
reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another 20
felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We consider whether that 21
1 A separate summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion resolves the
consolidated appeal of Wood’s codefendant‐appellant, Jahkeem Ryan.

-- 2 of 8 --

3
enhancement can apply to a defendant who sells a firearm and drugs either to a 1
buyer in a single transaction or to a buyer who the defendant has reason to 2
believe is a drug dealer. We hold that a district court may apply the 3
enhancement in either situation and accordingly AFFIRM the District Court’s 4
judgment with respect to Wood. 5
BACKGROUND 6
In 2015 Wood and codefendant Jahkeem Ryan sold heroin to an individual 7
who was a confidential government informant (referred to here as the “CI”).2 In 8
late August of that year Wood told the CI to go to an address in Kingston, New 9
York, where Ryan sold him about nine grams of heroin. In early September 10
Ryan and Wood sold the CI approximately thirty‐four more grams of heroin 11
packaged into bags for individual sale. A week later Wood arranged for the CI 12
to buy: ten bundles of heroin for $1,000; and a Smith and Wesson AR‐15 rifle and 13
a Mossberg shotgun for $600. But Wood did not have the AR‐15 with him on the 14
day of the sale. To make up for not providing the AR‐15, Ryan and Wood gave 15
the CI significantly more heroin for the same total price they had originally 16
negotiated. In a final controlled buy later that month, Ryan sold the CI 17
2 The facts in this opinion are drawn from the presentence investigation report for
Maurice Wood, which was filed under seal.

-- 3 of 8 --

4
approximately nineteen grams of heroin, packaged for resale into ninety‐nine 1
bags. 2
Wood was arrested in 2016 and eventually pled guilty to two counts of 3
possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 851, 4
and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 5
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the District Court relied on Guidelines 6
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to apply a four‐level enhancement to Wood’s sentence. The 7
enhancement increased the top end of the Guidelines range by 25 months. See 8
U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (2016). 9
DISCUSSION 10
On appeal, Wood argues that the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) does 11
not apply to the sale of heroin and the shotgun in this case because the gun was 12
not used to help sell the heroin. We start with the language of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), 13
which provides for a four‐point enhancement if the defendant “used or 14
possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense” 15
(the “in‐connection‐with” clause) or if the defendant “possessed or transferred 16
any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it 17
would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense” (the 18

-- 4 of 8 --

5
“reason‐to‐believe” clause). U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). According to the 1
Guidelines commentary, the enhancement applies if the firearm either facilitated 2
“or had the potential of facilitating” another felony offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. 3
n.14(A); see also United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470, 474 (2d Cir. 2008). 4
Although the Government argued for the enhancement based on the in‐ 5
connection‐with clause, App’x 147, the District Court never specified which 6
clause it was relying upon. We conclude that the court could have justified the 7
enhancement under either the “in‐connection‐with” or the “reason‐to‐believe” 8
clause based on a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Pica, 692 9
F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 2012) (applying a “preponderance of the evidence” standard 10
in the context of sentencing). 11
We address each clause in turn. 12
1. In‐Connection‐With Clause 13
This Court has held that § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)’s “in‐connection‐with” 14
requirement is satisfied so long as a firearm has the potential to “serve[] some 15
purpose with respect” to a defendant’s “felonious conduct.” United States v. 16
Spurgeon, 117 F.3d 641, 644 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Wyatt, 102 17
F.3d 241, 247 (7th Cir. 1996)). But “where the firearm’s presence is merely 18

-- 5 of 8 --

6
coincidental to that conduct,” we have stated that “the requirement is not met.” 1
Id. (quoting Wyatt, 102 F.3d at 247). The question presented in this appeal is 2
whether selling the shotgun could serve some purpose with respect to the 3
simultaneous sale of heroin. We hold that it could, because selling firearms and 4
drugs in the same transaction will normally facilitate both the drug sale and 5
future drug sales, and that is enough to trigger the enhancement under 6
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). See United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856, 869 (6th Cir. 2016); see 7
also United States v. Reyes, 668 F. App’x 858, 858–59 (11th Cir. 2016); United 8
States v. Bullard, 301 F. Appʹx 224, 227–28 (4th Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. 9
Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266–68 (4th Cir. 2000). Specifically, the firearm sale can 10
facilitate the drug sale by “sweetening the pot” for either the drug seller or 11
buyer. Henry, 819 F.3d at 866. By “offering to purchase not only drugs, but 12
other illegal goods as well,” a drug buyer may persuade “the drug seller to take 13
the risks inherent in selling contraband.” Lipford, 203 F.3d at 267. And 14
conversely, the drug dealer may “attempt to shore up the [buyer’s] drug 15
purchase” by offering to sell her something else. Henry, 819 F.3d at 866. The 16
bottom line is that the simultaneous sales can spur the buyer to keep buying 17
drugs from the same seller by lowering overall costs. See id. at 869. A district 18

-- 6 of 8 --

7
court therefore may apply § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)’s enhancement to a defendant who 1
sells a firearm and drugs in the same transaction. 2
With these general principles in mind, we turn to Wood’s challenge. 3
Recall that when Wood and Ryan failed to provide the AR‐15, they offered to 4
make it up to the CI by giving him more heroin for the same initial overall price. 5
At that point, the District Court was entitled to conclude, they treated the 6
shotgun and heroin as a package deal. And under those circumstances, the 7
District Court could and did justifiably apply the enhancement under the “in‐ 8
connection‐with” clause. 9
2. Reason‐to‐Believe Clause 10
The same four‐level enhancement would also have been justified under the 11
“reason‐to‐believe” clause of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In United States v. Young, the 12
district court found that “Young unlawfully sold a large number of unusually 13
dangerous weapons—AK–47s and TEC–9s—to people he knew to be drug 14
dealers.” 811 F.3d 592, 600 (2d Cir. 2016). That finding, we said, “is sufficient to 15
support an inference that he had reason to believe the guns would be used in 16
connection with other felonies.” Id. Our conclusion in Young simply recognized 17
the well‐known connection between firearms and drug trafficking. See United 18

-- 7 of 8 --

8
States v. Mitchell, 328 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that drug dealers 1
commonly keep firearms as “tools of the trade” (quotation marks omitted)). So 2
when a defendant sells a firearm to a known drug dealer, in most if not all cases 3
it is reasonable to infer that the defendant understood, or had “reason to 4
believe,” that the firearm would be used in connection with another felony. 5
It was easy for the District Court to infer that here. A week before they 6
sold the CI the shotgun, Wood and Ryan sold him a large quantity (thirty‐four 7
grams) of heroin packed into bags for individual sale. Wood then sold another 8
large quantity of heroin (over twenty‐seven grams) to the CI along with the 9
shotgun. Based on these facts, there was a solid basis to find that Wood had 10
“reason to believe” that the CI was a drug dealer buying the heroin for resale and 11
the shotgun as a tool of his trade. 12
C ONCLUSION 13
We have considered Wood’s remaining arguments and conclude that they 14
are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court 15
with respect to Maurice Wood, No. 18‐985, is AFFIRMED. 16

-- 8 of 8 --