United States v. Pierre S. MacKey
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20296, 265 F.3d 457, 2001 WL 1040391 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the government must demonstrate a specific nexus between the firearm and the drug crime, meaning the firearm must promote or facilitate the criminal activity and typically be strategically located for quick and easy availability. Sufficient evidence for possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) can be established through circumstantial evidence, including drug quantity, presence of drug paraphernalia, and the nature of the location.
Facts:
- In May 1999, police in Huntingdon, Tennessee, received a tip from a confidential informant about two men selling crack cocaine from a particular house.
- On May 13, 1999, police arranged for another confidential informant to buy crack at the house.
- The following day, when police arrived at the house to execute a search warrant, one man ran inside, and officers chased him into the house.
- Police found Pierre Mackey and two other individuals in the area between the living room and dining room.
- Outside the residence, officers observed Mackey drop a brown paper sack containing 2.3 grams of crack, and he possessed $855 in cash and a pager.
- Police found another brown bag containing 1.7 grams of crack on the ground near the house.
- Officers searched the house and found a loaded short-barreled shotgun in the living room, as well as a scanner, electronic scales, and razor blades.
- The house did not appear to function as a residence, lacking typical household items and having a barricaded front door, which testimony indicated was characteristic of a crack house.
Procedural Posture:
- Pierre Mackey was charged with possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d)), and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2).
- After a jury trial, a jury found Mackey guilty of all charges except for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. § 846), of which he and a co-defendant were acquitted.
- Mackey, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his possession with intent to distribute and firearm in furtherance of a drug crime convictions, and arguing that the district court erred in allowing a government stipulation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to prove that Pierre Mackey possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possessed a firearm 'in furtherance of' a drug trafficking crime, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) respectively?
Opinions:
Majority - ALAN E. NORRIS
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to uphold Pierre Mackey's convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Regarding the § 841(a)(1) conviction for possession with intent to distribute, the court found that a rational jury could conclude Mackey intended to distribute the crack. The evidence included Mackey's possession of 2.3 grams of crack and 1.7 additional grams found nearby, with testimony indicating that 2.3 grams was unlikely for personal use (dealers typically sell 0.2-gram 'rocks'). Circumstantial evidence, such as razor blades, scales, a scanner, a sawed-off shotgun, and a barricaded door, strongly indicated the house was a 'crack house' used for drug trafficking rather than a residence. An informant had also purchased crack from the house the day before, and Mackey was found with $855 in cash and a pager, all supporting an intent to distribute. Concerning the § 924(c) conviction for possessing a firearm 'in furtherance of' a drug crime, the court interpreted 'in furtherance of' to mean the weapon must promote or facilitate the crime, setting a higher standard than the previous 'during and in relation to' standard clarified in Bailey v. United States. The court outlined factors to assess this nexus, including strategic location for quick availability, whether the gun was loaded, its type, the legality of its possession, the type of drug activity, and the circumstances of its discovery. Here, an illegally possessed, loaded, short-barreled shotgun was found in the living room of the crack house, easily accessible near drug paraphernalia like scales and razor blades, while Mackey was present with cocaine and a large sum of cash. A reasonable jury could infer the firearm's purpose was to provide defense or deterrence in furtherance of the drug trafficking. Finally, the court found no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of a government stipulation. Any potential error was deemed harmless given the substantial other evidence establishing the house as a crack house and Mackey's intent to distribute.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of 'in furtherance of' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in the post-Bailey landscape, establishing it as a more stringent standard requiring a direct nexus between the firearm and the drug offense. The articulation of specific factors, such as strategic location and the nature of the weapon, provides a practical framework for lower courts to apply, moving beyond a simple 'fortress theory' where mere presence of a gun suffices. The ruling underscores the continued reliance on circumstantial evidence in establishing intent to distribute in drug possession cases, particularly when combined with evidence of a drug trafficking environment.
