United States v. Andre Blue

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-5157
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0045n.06

Case No. 25-5157

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 23, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ) TENNESSEE ANDRE BLUE, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )

Before: BOGGS, NALBANDIAN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Andre Blue on four counts of possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, among other offenses. He appeals these four

convictions, arguing that the government presented insufficient evidence to sustain them. Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, we affirm his convictions.

I.

In 2022, the Shelby County Multi-Agency Gang Unit (“MGU”) received information that

Andre Blue, a felon, was selling fentanyl out of a home on Highland Street in Memphis, Tennessee.

Through surveillance, investigators observed heavy vehicle traffic around the Highland residence.

The MGU oversaw several purchases of fentanyl at this location.

Investigators later learned that Blue was living with his girlfriend, Laquita Bratcher, at her

apartment in Memphis. They conducted surveillance at this location and observed heavy vehicle

traffic in and around the apartment complex. On multiple occasions, Blue exited Bratcher’s No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

apartment, engaged in hand-to-hand transactions with the occupants of certain vehicles, and then

returned to the apartment. Investigators also observed Blue driving from Bratcher’s apartment to

the residence on Highland Street. Based on this activity, the MGU suspected that Blue stored

narcotics and drug-trafficking proceeds inside Bratcher’s apartment.

The MGU executed a search warrant at Bratcher’s apartment, where they recovered five

plastic baggies from a toilet. One baggie contained methamphetamine, and the others contained

cocaine. In the primary bedroom, investigators found a digital scale, two baggies of cocaine, three

pistols, and several rounds of ammunition. Down the hallway, in a child’s bedroom closet,

investigators located an AR-15.

Following this search, investigators took Blue into custody. Blue claimed sole ownership

of the recovered firearms and narcotics. During a second search of Bratcher’s apartment,

investigators found $2,100 in the pocket of a sweatshirt.

The investigation of Blue’s activities continued into 2023. Through surveillance and other

means, the MGU suspected that Blue continued to sell fentanyl at the Highland Street residence.

Meanwhile, Blue and Bratcher had moved to a new house, and investigators believed that Blue

was storing narcotics and drug-trafficking proceeds at this new location.

Soon after, investigators obtained a search warrant for Blue’s new residence. During the

search, they found a digital scale with white residue, several baggies of marijuana, and a 9-mm

pistol.

A grand jury charged Blue with ten offenses: five counts of possession of a firearm as a

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); one count of possession with the intent to distribute

five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and four counts of

possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

-2- No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the government’s case, Blue moved for a

judgment of acquittal on the four counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-

trafficking crime. The district court denied the motion.

The jury found Blue guilty of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute

and guilty on all four counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

The jury also convicted him on four of the five counts of possession of a firearm as a convicted

felon.

Blue now appeals. He argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to convict him

of any of the charges of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based on

insufficient evidence. United States v. Maya, 966 F.3d 493, 498 (6th Cir. 2020). In doing so, we

ask “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 243 (2016) (quotation omitted). This is “a demanding

legal standard.” Maya, 966 F.3d at 498 (quotation omitted). Our “limited review does not intrude

on the jury’s role to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw

reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Musacchio, 577 U.S. at 243 (quotation

omitted). Circumstantial evidence alone can “defeat a sufficiency challenge.” United States v.

Brooks, 987 F.3d 593, 603 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted).

III.

To evaluate Blue’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we must first identify the “essential

elements” of his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See Musacchio, 577 U.S. at 243. Under

-3- No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

the statute, a person commits a crime if he “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug

trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, or . . ., in furtherance of any such crime, possesses

a firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). This statute thus covers two offenses: (1) a person who

“possesses” a firearm “in furtherance of” a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking offense; and (2)

a person who “uses or carries” a firearm “during and in relation to” such crimes. Id.; see also

Maya, 966 F.3d at 499.

Blue’s § 924(c) convictions were possession-in-furtherance offenses. So the government

needed to prove that Blue: (1) possessed a firearm; (2) committed a drug-trafficking crime; and

(3) possessed the firearm in furtherance of that crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); United States v.

Jordan, 100 F.4th 714, 726 (6th Cir. 2024). Blue does not dispute that he possessed the guns found

in Bratcher’s apartment. Nor does he dispute that he committed a drug-trafficking offense.

Instead, his challenge focuses on whether the government proved that he possessed the guns in

furtherance of his methamphetamine-trafficking offense.

A defendant possesses a gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime if the firearm

“promote[s] or facilitate[s] the crime.” United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457, 461 (6th Cir. 2001).

In other words, there must be a “nexus between the gun and the crime charged.” Id. at 462. For

example, if “a drug dealer owns a gun to protect the drugs, the proceeds of drug sales, or the dealer

himself, that possession-for-protection purpose will facilitate the crime.” Maya, 966 F.3d at 500

(citation modified). On the other hand, a defendant does not violate the statute if he possesses “the

gun for an innocent purpose—such as for hunting or as a wall-mounted antique.” Id. (citation

modified).

Because “[i]n most cases, a defendant will not confess to possessing the firearm to facilitate

a drug crime,” the government must generally rely on “circumstantial evidence to establish this

-4- No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

illicit purpose.” Id. But “[t]he mere fact that a gun was located at the same place as a drug crime

does not—by itself—suffice to show the required purpose to aid the crime.” Id. at 501. Instead,

courts look to a “non-exclusive list of six factors” to help “distinguish possession in furtherance

of a crime from innocent possession of a wall-mounted antique or an unloaded hunting rifle locked

in a cupboard.” United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569, 576 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation modified).

Those factors are: (1) whether the gun was “strategically located so as to be quickly and easily

available for use during a drug transaction”; (2) whether “the gun was loaded”; (3) “the type of

weapon”; (4) “the legality of the weapon’s possession”; (5) “the type of drug activity conducted”;

and (6) “the time and circumstances under which the firearm was found.” Id. at 576–77 (citation

modified). The central question in our “holistic analysis” is “whether a jury could rationally find

that the defendant possessed the gun to aid the drug crime.” Maya, 966 F.3d at 503.

The government presented sufficient evidence for a jury to rationally find Blue guilty of

possessing the firearms in furtherance of his methamphetamine offense. We address each factor

below.

A.

Strategic location. Bratcher testified that she and Blue slept in the primary bedroom of her

apartment. And they were in bed sleeping when the MGU executed the search warrant.

Investigators found three guns in the primary bedroom: one .45-caliber pistol on the bed and a .45-

caliber pistol and a 9-mm pistol on the floor near the bed. These guns were within arm’s reach of

where Blue was sleeping. Thus, he had quick and easy access to the firearms. They were also

close to the methamphetamine that investigators found in the primary bathroom. This bathroom

is accessible only through the primary bedroom. A jury could “reasonably infer that firearms

which are strategically located so as to provide defense or deterrence in furtherance of the drug

-5- No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

trafficking are used in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.” United States v. Swafford, 385

F.3d 1026, 1029 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation modified); see also United States v. Ham, 628 F.3d 801,

809 (6th Cir. 2011) (a gun was “strategically” located when placed on top of an armoire outside

the closet where the drugs were found (quotation omitted)).

The fourth gun, a loaded AR-15, was found unsecured on a shelf in a child’s bedroom

closet. The child’s bedroom was down the hallway from where the narcotics were found. One

investigator testified that it is atypical for a gun owner to have an unsecured gun in a child’s closet.

Based on the evidence, a factfinder could rationally determine that an unsecured firearm stored in

a child’s closet—down the hall from where the narcotics were found—is an easily accessible

location. See Brown, 732 F.3d at 576–77; Swafford, 385 F.3d at 1027–29.

Whether the gun was loaded. Blue had three loaded guns in the apartment. A Smith &

Wesson .45-caliber pistol was loaded with seven rounds of ammunition, a Glock 30 .45-caliber

pistol was loaded with eleven rounds, and the AR-15 was loaded with “about a hundred” rounds.

R. 151, PageID 952. The 9-mm pistol was unloaded.

Type of weapon. Investigators found two .45-caliber pistols, one 9-mm pistol, and one AR-

15 in the apartment. Two investigators testified that it was common for people who deal in

narcotics to possess firearms to protect themselves and their product. A .45-caliber handgun “is

easily transported or concealed on the body, making it more likely to be used in furtherance of a

drug crime.” United States v. Gill, 685 F.3d 606, 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation modified). A 9-

mm pistol is also “often used in drug trafficking.” United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 599 (6th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). And an AR-15 is a high-powered firearm and not the type of

weapon that “suggest[s] an innocent purpose, such as hunting or antique collecting.” United States

v. Stafford, 232 F. App’x 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2007).

-6- No. 25-5157, United States v. Blue

Legality of possession. Blue was a felon at the time he possessed the firearms. Thus, it

was illegal for him to possess the firearms. Not only that, two of the guns had been reported stolen.

Type of drug activity. Law enforcement observed Blue making hand-to-hand transactions

in the parking lot of Bratcher’s apartment complex and outside the house on Highland Street. “In

hand-to-hand transactions, the possession of a gun is meaningful: those are the types of exchanges

in which dealers most need a firearm.” United States v. Ellis, No. 24-5283, 2025 WL 1081760, at

*3 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2025).

Time and circumstances. Under the last factor, we consider the time and the circumstances

under which the firearm was found. Investigators recovered the guns during the same search in

which they located the methamphetamine.

B.

In response, Blue argues that the government presented no evidence “exclud[ing] the

possibility” that he possessed the firearms for personal security. D. 30 at p.13. But the

government’s evidence need not remove every possible pathway to a not-guilty verdict. See

United States v. Sadler, 24 F.4th 515, 539 (6th Cir. 2022) (“Circumstantial evidence alone is

sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis

except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted)). Viewing the evidence holistically, a rational jury could

find that Blue possessed the guns in furtherance of drug trafficking. A jury could reasonably infer

that Blue possessed the guns to safeguard the narcotics and thousands of dollars in cash stored in

the apartment or to protect himself during drug transactions.

IV.

For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

-7-