United States of America v. Wayne Duvall Coleman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1510
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Wayne Duvall Coleman
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: November 17, 2023
Filed: March 29, 2024
[Published]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Wayne Duvall Coleman pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court1 erred in
the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. We affirm.
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
I.
On June 15, 2022, law enforcement officers responded to a report of shots
fired in the area of a Springdale, Arkansas, apartment that had been recently under
surveillance for suspected drug activity. At the scene, they saw a green SUV leaving
the area. Officers located the SUV, conducted a traffic stop, and identified Coleman
as the driver. They obtained a warrant to search the SUV, where they found over 50
grams of methamphetamine.
Coleman pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C).2 As
relevant to this appeal, Coleman objected to the recommendation in his Presentence
Report that a 2-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon applied to
his offense level. United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2D1.1(b)(1)
(2021).
At sentencing, the district court considered police reports and a video of the
June 15 incident admitted on stipulation by the parties and found the following facts.
Coleman pulled up to the apartment in a green SUV. A man, B.C., came out of
another apartment, raised what appeared to be a gun in Coleman’s direction, and
then quickly retreated inside. Coleman was holding a long gun but was still “behind
the cover of the SUV.” Within seconds, just as Coleman emerged, B.C. fired six or
seven shots from inside, in Coleman’s direction. Coleman again took cover. As he
did, he manipulated the side of the long gun, which appeared to be “an AR-style
rifle,” possibly pulling back the ejector or trying to reload it. At that point, a woman
came out of the apartment building, yelling “Stop, please stop!” She moved toward
2 Coleman was also charged with one count of possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) based on
conduct from an earlier date. This count was dismissed at sentencing, and the
conduct underlying it was not considered relevant conduct. See USSG Ch.1, Pt.A,
intro. comment.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
Coleman, “staying low to avoid getting hit,” got into the SUV with him, and they
drove away.
Officers arrived on scene, where they found two unspent rounds of .223
caliber ammunition—a size used in AR-style rifles—in the street in front of the
apartment building. They also found several spent .45 caliber casings inside the
apartment where B.C. had retreated, and in the outdoor parking area. The district
court found that the location of the spent casings supported the theory that shots were
fired “from inside out.” The court also found that the unspent ammunition located
near the curb was “in the general vicinity” of where Coleman had either been trying
to eject or reload a firearm before he and the woman drove away. Inside the green
SUV was a receipt for .223 ammunition.
Based on these findings, the court applied the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement,
resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 151–188 months. The court sentenced
Coleman to a 140-month term of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.
This appeal followed.
II.
“We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its
application of the guidelines de novo.” United States v. Renteria-Saldana, 755 F.3d
856, 858–59 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1), a
defendant’s base offense level for a drug offense increases by two levels “[i]f a
dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” We have held that “[t]his
enhancement applies if the government proves, by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) the gun was possessed, and (2) it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was
connected to the drug offense.” United States v. Rivera, 76 F.4th 1085, 1091 (8th
Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-6421, 2024 WL 675188 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024); see
also USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.11). “The evidence is sufficient to apply the
[§ 2D1.1(b)(1)] increase where there is a temporal and spatial relationship between

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” United States v.
Bandstra, 999 F.3d 1099, 1101 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
Coleman does not contest that he possessed a dangerous weapon on June 15,
2022. Instead, he argues that there was insufficient evidence of a temporal and spatial
connection between the weapon he possessed at the scene of the shooting and the
distribution-quantity of methamphetamine in the SUV. According to Coleman, no
evidence supported the idea that the shooting incident with B.C. had anything to do
with drug distribution. Rather, witnesses suggested “that it had to do with jealousy
over a woman.”
We discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that there was sufficient
connection between the weapon and Coleman’s drug trafficking offense to support
the enhancement. The court found that Coleman had a firearm in the SUV when he
arrived at a location that was under investigation for drug activity. And it found that
Coleman had a distribution-quantity of methamphetamine in the same SUV shortly
thereafter. These findings, which Coleman does not meaningfully challenge, support
the district court’s conclusion that it was not “clearly improbable that the weapon
was connected with [Coleman’s drug] offense.” United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d
873, 879–80 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Findings will be reversed only if the entire record
definitely and firmly establishes that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted)).
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --