Background
Joshua Morris was stopped by police in February 2023 and found in possession of two handguns (a loaded 9mm and an unloaded .22), ammunition, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Approximately four months later, in June 2023, Morris was stopped again and found with a .45 caliber handgun, marijuana, methamphetamine, a scale, and a syringe.
Morris was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). He pleaded guilty to the count based on the February stop. The second count based on the June stop was dismissed, but the district court treated the June firearm possession as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Morris was sentenced to 110 months imprisonment.
On appeal, Morris contested two sentencing enhancements: one for possessing three firearms under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), and another for possessing a firearm in connection with drug possession under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). He argued that his June firearm possession was unrelated to the February conviction and should not be considered relevant conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentencing enhancements on all grounds. First, the court held that the June 2023 firearm possession was properly considered relevant conduct under the “same course of conduct” standard. The court noted that relevant conduct includes acts that are part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan. The bar for finding a “same course of conduct” is not high, and courts may rely on the similarity, regularity, and timing of offenses. Here, Morris possessed firearms in both February and June 2023—similar conduct separated by a few months—and he was on notice to avoid guns following the February arrest. The district court did not clearly err in finding these possessions part of the same course of conduct.
Second, the court affirmed the enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with drug possession. The court explained that when a defendant concurrently possesses drugs and a firearm while in public, an “in connection with” finding will rarely be clearly erroneous. The bar for showing that a firearm facilitates or has the potential to facilitate drug possession is not high. Morris carried methamphetamine and a firearm in his vehicle—a concurrent possession in public that satisfies the enhancement requirement.
Third, the court rejected Morris’s argument that the district court failed to make an explicit finding that the gun facilitated or potentially facilitated drug possession. The court held that explicit factual findings are not required; the district court’s citation to relevant case law and application of the enhancement is sufficient to support the enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- Firearm possessions separated by several months can constitute relevant conduct as part of the same course of conduct for sentencing guideline purposes.
- Concurrent possession of drugs and a firearm in a vehicle satisfies the “in connection with another felony” requirement of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
- District courts need not make explicit factual findings regarding firearm facilitation to apply drug-related firearm enhancements; citation to precedent and application of the enhancement is sufficient.
Why It Matters
This decision expands the scope of sentencing in federal firearm cases by allowing courts to treat firearm possessions months apart as a unified course of conduct. The low threshold for finding relevance means prosecutors can aggregate multiple firearm possessions over extended periods to significantly increase offense levels and sentences. For defendants carrying firearms while in possession of drugs, the concurrent possession alone—without proof the gun was used or intended to be used in connection with drug distribution—suffices for enhancement.
The ruling also gives district courts flexibility in application by eliminating the need for explicit factual findings. This reduces appellate scrutiny of firearm enhancements and streamlines sentencing proceedings, but it also means less judicial elaboration on precisely how a firearm relates to drug possession in cases where the connection may be tenuous.