A Record-Supported Firearm–Drug Nexus Sustains the Sentencing Enhancement Without Reliance on Guidelines Commentary

Case: United States v. Eric Person
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date: October 16, 2026
Docket: No. 25-12773
Disposition: Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Precedential status: The opinion is designated “NOT FOR PUBLICATION.” It applies existing circuit precedent rather than establishing a new binding circuit rule. Its principal significance is its explanation of how the evidentiary record can sustain a firearm-related sentencing enhancement without deference to Guidelines commentary.

1. Introduction

This appeal concerned two recurring questions in federal firearms litigation: whether the Second Amendment invalidates the federal prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons, and what evidence connects firearm possession to a separate drug felony for sentencing purposes.

Eric Person pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). He challenged both the constitutionality of his conviction and a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which applies when a firearm is used or possessed “in connection with another felony offense.” The United States defended the conviction and argued that the firearm was connected to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both challenges. Existing circuit authority foreclosed Person’s constitutional argument. As to sentencing, the court concluded that the combined factual record—including expert testimony about drug distribution and the protective role of firearms—supported the enhancement independently of the Guidelines commentary’s proximity-based discussion.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 2024, Columbus, Georgia, police stopped a U-Haul van for failing to signal a turn. Person, who was the passenger, had an outstanding arrest warrant and was arrested. The driver, his girlfriend, had concealed suspected crack cocaine and methamphetamine on her body. She told officers that Person had instructed her to flee and, after she refused, had given her the drugs to conceal.

Officers recovered a backpack between the seats containing two glass smoking devices, a digital scale, and a Ruger LCP .380 semiautomatic pistol with an eleven-round magazine. Person acknowledged knowing about the firearm before the search. Laboratory testing confirmed 17.310 grams of a methamphetamine mixture; the suspected cocaine was never confirmed.

The presentence investigation report calculated an advisory imprisonment range of 110 to 137 months. That calculation included the disputed four-level enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

At sentencing, ATF Special Agent Paul Culp described the driver’s statements and Person’s knowledge of the firearm. DEA Special Agent Cortny Barkesdale testified as an expert in drug distribution. He explained that:

  • The presence of two different suspected drugs was consistent with distribution rather than simultaneous personal use.
  • Having a woman carry drugs resembled a concealment practice he called “suitcasing.”
  • Scales are used by both consumers and distributors.
  • Drug distributors commonly carry firearms to protect themselves and their drugs.

The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Person possessed the firearm in connection with a drug-distribution offense. It then imposed 180 months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the calculated advisory range. The appellate opinion addressed the constitutional challenge and the enhancement; it did not separately analyze the substantive reasonableness of that variance.

3. Summary of the Opinion

The constitutional challenge was foreclosed

Person argued that § 922(g) was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The Eleventh Circuit held that its existing precedent sustaining § 922(g)(1) remained binding. A circuit panel could not disregard that precedent when the court had already determined that the intervening Supreme Court decisions did not abrogate it.

The sentencing enhancement was supported by the record

The court rejected Person’s argument that the district court had improperly relied only on the firearm’s proximity to drugs and paraphernalia. The district court’s findings reflected a broader assessment of the evidence, and the appellate court could affirm on any ground supported by the sentencing record.

That record included testimony linking the circumstances to drug distribution and explaining how firearms protect drug-trafficking activity. Together, the evidence supported a conclusion that the gun was “contextually, causally, or logically related” to the drug felony.

An important question remained unresolved

The court did not decide whether earlier precedent restricting proximity-based enhancements in simple drug-possession cases now extends to drug-trafficking cases. It assumed Person’s proposed extension for purposes of argument and concluded that the enhancement survived even on that assumption.

4. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Appellate review

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2024). This decision supplied the rule that a constitutional challenge first raised on appeal receives plain-error review. Because Person had not presented his constitutional objection below, he did not receive ordinary, preserved-error review. Nevertheless, the panel’s decisive reasoning was that binding circuit precedent foreclosed his position; it did not undertake an extended analysis of each plain-error requirement.

United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2019). This case served two functions. First, it supplied the standards governing Guidelines issues: legal interpretation is reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Second, it provided Person’s principal substantive analogy. In United States v. Bishop, the district court had imposed the firearm enhancement based only on proximity between a firearm and a single hydromorphone pill. The Eleventh Circuit distinguished drug possession from drug trafficking under the then-applied commentary and remanded for consideration of whether the firearm facilitated the possession offense.

Person argued that subsequent changes in the treatment of Guidelines commentary extended that reasoning to trafficking cases. The panel did not resolve the proposed extension because the evidence here went beyond proximity.

Second Amendment authority and binding circuit precedent

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). Person invoked these Supreme Court decisions as grounds for reconsidering the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession prohibition. The panel did not independently apply their constitutional analysis to Person’s circumstances. Instead, it relied on circuit precedent addressing whether those decisions displaced the Eleventh Circuit’s existing rule.

United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 770–71 (11th Cir. 2010). This was the foundational circuit decision holding § 922(g)(1) constitutional under the Second Amendment. Its continuing authority was central: unless properly displaced, its holding controlled Person’s facial challenge.

United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 890–94 (11th Cir. 2025). This decision supplied the direct answer to Person’s intervening-precedent argument. It confirmed that neither New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi had abrogated United States v. Rozier. Person conceded this obstacle. The panel therefore treated the constitutional issue as settled at its level of review.

United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016). This case supplied the prior-panel-precedent rule: a panel must follow binding circuit precedent unless the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc overrules it. The rule explains why the panel could not reopen the constitutional question merely because Person urged a different reading of recent Supreme Court decisions.

Guidelines text, commentary, and the firearm nexus

United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). This decision established the interpretive framework for Guidelines commentary. Courts may not defer to commentary when the guideline’s text is unambiguous. Its importance here was methodological: the enhancement had to be justified through the operative guideline rather than by treating commentary as independently controlling.

United States v. James, 135 F.4th 1329 (11th Cir. 2025). Applying that framework, this decision held that the phrase “in connection with” in § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is broad but unambiguous, leaving no need to consider or defer to the application notes. It also supplied the formulation that firearm possession must be “contextually, causally, or logically related” to another felony. The Person panel used that formulation to evaluate the complete evidentiary record rather than a commentary-based automatic rule.

United States v. Irons, 176 F.4th 1275, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2026). This decision explained the expansive ways the government can establish the required connection. A firearm may potentially embolden a defendant, be available to complete the offense, or serve as a weapon if law enforcement intervenes. These examples show why actual discharge or proven use during a drug transaction is unnecessary. They also supported consideration of expert testimony explaining the firearm’s protective role.

United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015). This case authorized affirmance of a sentencing enhancement for any reason supported by the record. It answered Person’s objection that the district court’s findings did not expressly explain how the gun facilitated the drug offense. The appellate court could sustain the result using the evidence already presented, even without “perfect clarity” in the district court’s explanation.

United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779, 783 (11th Cir. 2007). The panel cited this authority in connection with the government’s use of a drug-distribution expert. Expert evidence helped explain the significance of facts that might otherwise appear ambiguous, particularly the concealment method and the relationship between firearms and drug distribution. The opinion did not hold that expert testimony is required in every enhancement proceeding.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The constitutional ruling rested on precedent, not a new historical inquiry

The Second Amendment analysis was narrow. Person’s argument encountered two controlling propositions: the circuit had upheld § 922(g)(1), and it had subsequently determined that the Supreme Court decisions Person invoked did not displace that holding. The prior-panel-precedent rule therefore resolved the appeal.

The opinion should not be read as conducting a new historical examination of firearm restrictions or deciding a distinct, individualized challenge to Person’s disarmament. It rejected the facial challenge presented under existing circuit law.

2. Unambiguous guideline text controlled over commentary

Application Note 14(B) addresses drug trafficking when a firearm is found close to drugs, manufacturing materials, or paraphernalia. Historically, that commentary had been understood to make the enhancement automatic in qualifying trafficking cases.

After United States v. Dupree and United States v. James, however, the starting point is the guideline’s unambiguous text. The government must establish possession “in connection with” another felony; it cannot substitute mandatory deference to commentary for that textual inquiry.

This interpretive change does not make physical proximity irrelevant. A firearm’s location remains part of the evidence. The distinction is between evaluating proximity alongside other facts and treating a commentary provision as a dispositive shortcut.

3. The cumulative evidence supported both distribution and connection

The record implicated two related questions: whether the drugs were possessed for distribution and whether the firearm was connected to that felony. The expert’s testimony addressed both.

The concealment arrangement, suspected variety of drugs, scale, firearm, and Person’s knowledge collectively supported the distribution inference. The expert’s account of firearms protecting drug activity supported the further inference that this gun had a relevant relationship to that activity.

Some facts were not conclusive on their own. The scale could serve either a user or a dealer, smoking devices suggested drug consumption, and the suspected cocaine remained unconfirmed. The court nevertheless held that the combined record supported the enhancement. It did not treat every item of paraphernalia as proof of trafficking or every nearby firearm as automatically connected to it.

4. An imperfect explanation did not require reversal

Person argued that the district court had not adequately explained the firearm’s facilitating role. The appellate court answered in two stages. First, the record did not show that the district court relied solely on proximity or improperly deferred to commentary. Second, the expert testimony and surrounding circumstances independently supported affirmance.

The resulting holding is record-specific. The court did not announce that a bare finding of nearby drugs and a gun is always sufficient, nor did it make generic expert testimony automatically dispositive.

C. Potential Impact

For prosecutors, the opinion illustrates the value of building a record that explains the firearm’s role in the separate felony. Evidence of concealment, control, drug-distribution practices, and protection can support an enhancement without relying on the commentary’s former automatic-proximity approach.

For defense counsel, it shows why a commentary-based objection alone may not succeed. Even if the district court’s articulation is incomplete, a developed record may support affirmance. Challenges should address both the alleged trafficking offense and the claimed relationship between that offense and the firearm.

For sentencing courts, the opinion favors expressly identifying the separate felony and explaining the firearm’s contextual, causal, or logical connection to it. Although the record saved the enhancement here, clearer findings reduce uncertainty on appeal.

For future litigation, the unresolved issue is important: the panel did not definitively extend the simple-possession reasoning of United States v. Bishop to trafficking cases after the circuit’s commentary decisions. Nor did it establish a universal minimum evidentiary formula.

Because the opinion is unpublished, these practical lessons are persuasive rather than a new binding rule. Its constitutional disposition likewise reinforces existing circuit law rather than expanding it.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial constitutional challenge
An argument attacking a statute’s validity generally, rather than only its application to the particular defendant.
Plain-error review
A demanding appellate standard for an objection not raised in the trial court. Identifying a possible mistake alone is not enough to obtain reversal.
De novo and clear-error review
De novo review means the appellate court independently decides a legal question. Clear-error review gives greater deference to the trial court’s factual findings.
Preponderance of the evidence
The sentencing burden applied here: the relevant facts had to be more likely true than not true.
Guidelines commentary
Explanatory material accompanying the Sentencing Guidelines. Under the circuit’s cited decisions, it cannot control interpretation when the guideline text is already unambiguous.
“In connection with” another felony
The required relationship between the firearm and a separate felony. The gun need not be fired; its potential to protect, assist, or embolden criminal activity may establish the connection.
Upward variance
A sentence above the advisory Guidelines range. Here, the enhancement helped produce the 110-to-137-month range, while the district court separately selected a 180-month sentence.
En banc review
Review by the court’s full complement of eligible active judges rather than an ordinary three-judge panel. An en banc decision can overrule prior circuit precedent.

6. Conclusion

United States v. Eric Person affirms that the firearm enhancement can survive without reliance on Guidelines commentary when the complete record establishes a meaningful connection between the firearm and a drug felony. Expert testimony about distribution practices and firearm protection helped supply that connection here.

The decision also confirms the controlling force of existing Eleventh Circuit precedent sustaining § 922(g)(1). Its broader significance lies in its disciplined reliance on precedent, guideline text, and record evidence—not in creating a new categorical rule about guns found near drugs.