Clarifying Good-Faith Exception and Firearm Enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) and Zero-Point Offender Adjustments

Introduction

United States v. Jimmy Lee Spencer, decided by the Eleventh Circuit on March 4, 2025, presents four core issues under federal criminal procedure and sentencing guidelines:

The validity of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment and the scope of the Leon good-faith exception.
The application of a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1).
The eligibility for a zero-point offender reduction under the newly minted U.S.S.G. §4C1.1 (Amendment 821, 2023).
The procedural and substantive reasonableness of a 48-month custodial sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).

Jimmy Lee Spencer was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the sentencing enhancements and reductions, and the overall reasonableness of his sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Spencer’s conviction and 48-month sentence. Key holdings include:

The warrant affidavit supplied sufficient indicia of probable cause, and even if marginal, officers relied on it in objective good faith under United States v. Leon.
A two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) was appropriate because firearms were found in close proximity to drugs and related paraphernalia, creating a reasonable inference of connection.
Spencer was not entitled to a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. §4C1.1 because he failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not possess firearms “in connection with” the offense.
The district court did not commit procedural or substantive error in calculating the Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors, or in imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) – establishes the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
United States v. Robinson, 336 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2003) – permits reliance on affidavit facts to satisfy the government’s burden under Leon.
United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002) – outlines the four Leon exceptions and the concept of “close calls.”
United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2017) – explains the burden-shifting framework for the §2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement.
United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir. 2013) – interprets “in connection with” for both the firearm enhancement and safety-valve eligibility.
Amendment 821 (2023), U.S.S.G. §4C1.1 – created the zero-point offender adjustment.

Legal Reasoning

1. Good-Faith Exception: Reviewing a warrant challenge de novo, the court applied Leon’s four exceptions. The affidavit—based on a reliable informant, trash pull, and physical surveillance—was not so lacking in probable cause as to make officer reliance entirely unreasonable. Even if the affidavit presented a “close call,” Leon allows suppression only where officers act dishonestly, recklessly, or the deficiency is glaring.

2. Firearm Enhancement under §2D1.1(b)(1): The government must show by a preponderance that (a) a firearm was present and (b) it was connected to the offense, unless “clearly improbable” otherwise. Here, weapons were intermingled with drugs, paraphernalia, a safe, and cash—undercutting any argument that the guns were a mere coincidence.

3. Zero-Point Offender Reduction under §4C1.1: A defendant with zero criminal history points may receive a two-level reduction if he satisfies ten criteria, including no firearms possession “in connection with” the offense. Drawing on safety-valve precedent (§5C1.2(a)(2)), the court required Spencer to show it was more likely than not that the guns did not facilitate or embolden his narcotics activity. He could not.

4. Sentence Reasonableness: Under Gall v. United States, sentencing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Spencer failed to preserve procedural objections, so the court applied plain-error review. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines, considered 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors, and provided an individualized explanation. The within-range sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

Impact

• This decision reaffirms a permissive standard for the good-faith exception, especially in “close-call” affidavits.
• It clarifies the burden-shifting framework under §2D1.1(b)(1) and underscores that proximity of firearms to narcotics typically establishes the requisite connection.
• It establishes that defendants seeking the new zero-point adjustment (§4C1.1) must overcome a presumption of connection if they have already triggered a firearm enhancement.
• It reminds sentencing courts of their broad discretion under §3553(a) and limited appellate interference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Good-Faith Exception (Leon): If officers rely on a warrant they believe valid, seized evidence isn’t excluded—even if the warrant later proves deficient—unless the affidavit was fraudulently prepared or the deficiency was blatantly obvious.
“Connected With” a Firearm: A gun “connects” to a drug offense if it can facilitate violence or protection in the transaction—a link often assumed when guns and drugs share the same premises.
Zero-Point Offender Reduction: A new bonus for first-time federal offenders, but lost if they possessed weapons in connection with their crime.

Conclusion

United States v. Spencer cements several guiding principles: courts will uphold marginal warrants under Leon’s good-faith exception; they will routinely enhance under §2D1.1(b)(1) when firearms and drugs coexist; and the zero-point reduction (§4C1.1) remains elusive if a firearm connection is established. Sentencing discretion under §3553(a) continues to command deference so long as the district court provides a reasoned, individualized analysis. Together, these holdings sharpen the law on Fourth Amendment suppression, Guidelines enhancements and reductions, and appellate review of federal sentences.