United States v. Michael LeBeau ( 2022 )

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[Unpublished]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-