USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14883
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cr-00084-CEM-DCI-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EVERETT JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 18, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit
Judges.
WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 2 of 7
In this sentencing appeal, a defendant convicted of selling heroin and
possessing a firearm as a felon contests the applicability of a provision of the
Sentencing Guidelines that increases the offense level when a criminal uses or
possesses a gun “in connection with” another felony. United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (Nov. 2018). After agreeing to sell heroin and
a firearm to a confidential informant, Everett Jackson sold the heroin as promised
but failed to deliver the firearm on that date. He made up for it later when he
provided the firearm at the same time his associate provided more heroin for sale
to the informant. The district court found that a sufficient connection existed
between the first heroin sale and the later firearm sale, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2018, a confidential informant worked with law enforcement to
apprehend two men selling contraband in Daytona Beach, Florida. The informant
said he could purchase heroin from Sheldon Rice and a firearm from Rice’s
“acquaintance,” Everett Jackson. Law enforcement prepared the informant for a
controlled buy of both items to take place on July 26. But Rice later said he was
not available to provide the heroin. Instead, Jackson would provide both the heroin
and the firearm at Jackson’s apartment. The informant called Jackson, and Jackson
confirmed that he would be waiting at his apartment.
The informant arrived at Jackson’s apartment on July 26. The drug sale
2
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 3 of 7
happened as planned. When the informant arrived, Jackson came outside, retrieved
a bag containing six grams of heroin from someone standing in his parking lot, and
handed the bag to the informant. The informant paid Jackson $650, and Jackson
returned $20 in change.
The firearm sale did not go to plan. Jackson told the informant that he did
not have the firearm yet after all. Jackson expressed anger that he did not have the
firearm as expected, and he promised to get it soon.
A few days later, on July 30, the informant told law enforcement that
Jackson had obtained the firearm and that Rice had more heroin for sale. Again
under law-enforcement supervision, he set up a controlled buy to purchase both the
drugs and the firearm on August 1 at Jackson’s apartment.
When the informant arrived at Jackson’s apartment on August 1, Rice and
Jackson were waiting outside. The informant parked his car next to Rice’s car.
Jackson went inside his apartment and retrieved the firearm. He put the firearm in
the informant’s car, and the informant paid him $700. Then the informant went to
Rice’s car to complete the heroin transaction with Rice.
Police arrested Jackson. He was charged with possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon and with possessing heroin with intent to distribute it. 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He pleaded guilty to
both charges subject to a plea agreement.
3
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 4 of 7
The district court determined that Jackson’s offense level under the
Sentencing Guidelines was 21, based in part on a four-level enhancement for using
or possessing a firearm or ammunition “in connection with” another felony
offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Over Jackson’s objection, the district court
found that the enhancement applied because the informant “showed up” to the July
26 sale “thinking he was going to buy drugs and guns, and the gun wasn’t there.”
“So,” the informant was told, “come back and then we’ll do the gun, and they did
that.” The drug and firearm sales were “more than connect[ed],” the court found,
and the government’s evidence “completely tie[d] the knot” between them. The
district court made this finding even though it ruled that Rice’s sale of heroin in
Jackson’s parking lot on August 1 was not relevant conduct for Jackson’s July 26
heroin sale and August 1 firearm sale.
With the enhancement, Jackson’s guidelines range was 57 to 71 months.
Without the enhancement, Jackson’s guidelines range would have been 37 to 46
months. The district court sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment and three
years of supervised release.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo, and we review underlying findings of fact for clear error. United States v.
Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 2015). The determination that a
4
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 5 of 7
defendant possessed a firearm “in connection with” another felony is a finding of
fact. United States v. Martinez, 964 F.3d 1329, 1333 (11th Cir. 2020).
III. DISCUSSION
We review sentences to determine whether they are procedurally and
substantively reasonable. United States v. Isaac, 987 F.3d 980, 990 (11th Cir.
2021). Miscalculating the guidelines range is one kind of procedural
unreasonableness. United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 953 (11th Cir. 2020).
Jackson argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the
district court miscalculated his guideline range by relying on an enhancement that
should not have applied.
The provision in question, section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), increases the offense
level by four if the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in
connection with another felony offense.” The commentary explains that one kind
of sufficient connection exists when the firearm “facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating,” the other felony offense. Id. cmt. n.14(A). Facilitation occurs, for
example, when a drug dealer setting up a controlled-substance sale offers to also
sell a firearm to “shore up” the drug purchase. See United States v. Ryan, 935 F.3d
40, 42–43 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, adding a
firearm sale to a drug sale can facilitate the drug sale by making the purchase of
contraband more efficient and reducing the risk of detection by reducing the
5
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 6 of 7
number of transactions. See United States v. Darryl Jackson, 877 F.3d 231, 241
(6th Cir. 2017).
The district court did not clearly err by finding that Jackson “used or
possessed” a firearm “in connection with” a heroin sale. U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The original heroin and firearm sales were negotiated to occur at
the same time on July 26. The confidential informant arrived at Jackson’s
apartment reasonably expecting to complete both transactions at the same time,
and Jackson expressed anger that he unexpectedly did not have the firearm.
Coordinating the sales made them more convenient, shoring up the drug sale and
allowing the sellers to conduct two sales with a minimal increase in the risk of
detection. See Ryan, 935 F.3d at 43; Darryl Jackson, 877 F.3d at 241. A sufficient
connection existed to support the application of the four-level enhancement in
section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
The proximity of the firearm to a second jointly arranged firearm-and-drug
transaction on August 1 could have also supported this finding, but the district
court determined that the August 1 heroin sale was not relevant conduct. That
finding is unchallenged on appeal, so our review involves only the July 26 heroin
sale.
Jackson argues that three aspects of the transactions defeat the connection
between the drug and firearm sales: one transaction was with Jackson and the other
6
USCA11 Case: 19-14883 Date Filed: 05/18/2021 Page: 7 of 7
was with Rice, Jackson did not deliver the firearm until several days after he
delivered the heroin, and the firearm and drugs had separate purchase prices. But
none of these facts undermines the connection between the drug and firearm sales.
Although one transaction was with Rice and the other was with Jackson, the two
were working closely together. Jackson provided the heroin on Rice’s behalf when
Rice could not attend the sale, and he agreed to let both transactions occur at his
apartment. To be sure, Jackson did not deliver the firearm until several days after
he delivered the heroin for Rice, but that delay was an unexpected coincidence and
does not change the fact that the deals were planned to occur at the same time. And
though a “package deal” is one kind of sufficient connection between drug and
firearm sales, see United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 96 (11th Cir. 2013)
(applying U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2)), it is not necessary to apply the enhancement,
see id. at 96, 98; Martinez, 964 F.3d at 1336–38. None of Jackson’s arguments
renders clearly erroneous the finding that Jackson possessed the firearm “in
connection with” the heroin transaction, so the guidelines calculation was correct
and Jackson’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM Jackson’s sentence.
7