United States v. Michael LeBeau

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: August 9, 2022
• Docket: 22-1091
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1091 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Jonathan LeBeau

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________

Submitted: May 9, 2022 Filed: August 9, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before STRAS, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael LeBeau received an 84-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Although he challenges the findings underlying a two-level enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon, we affirm. When law enforcement raided LeBeau’s home, they found drugs, plastic baggies, a digital scale, and a Smith & Wesson revolver. The district court1 found that LeBeau possessed a gun “in connection with” his drug business. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Our task is to figure out whether this finding was clearly erroneous. See id. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A) (noting that the dangerous-weapon enhancement “should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense”); see also United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (applying clear-error review).

Establishing a connection poses a “low bar for the government.” United States v. Garcia, 703 F.3d 471, 476 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Here, the government did it through testimony that “LeBeau had held a black pistol to [a witness’s] head” after a drug deal fell through and that he frequently traded “firearms in exchange [for] meth.” Moreover, a “minimum of 11 different sources” stated that LeBeau was dealing drugs out of the same house where he kept guns. Under these circumstances, it did not require much for the district court to “infer[]” that the guns and drugs were “somehow connected.” United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Garcia, 703 F.3d at 477.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-