Clarifying the Nexus Requirement for § 924(c)(1) Guilty Pleas – United States v. Gray

Introduction

United States v. Gray (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025) addresses the sufficiency of the factual basis a district court must establish before accepting a guilty plea under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Amanda Christine Gray appealed the district‐court’s acceptance of her plea to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)) and carrying a firearm “during and in relation to” that drug‐trafficking offense. The sole contested issue was whether the facts admitted at her plea hearing—possession of approximately 20 grams of fentanyl pills and a handgun found in her car door—created a sufficient nexus between the gun and the drug conspiracy. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, clarifying how proximity and intent evidence satisfy the § 924(c)(1) “during and in relation to” requirement in a plea colloquy.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit, after applying plain‐error review, held:

Ms. Gray’s acknowledgments at her plea hearing that she possessed both distribution‐quantity fentanyl and her personal handgun in the same vehicle furnished an adequate factual basis for the § 924(c)(1) plea.
Controlling precedent (Burkley, Winder, Nicholson) presumes a nexus when a defendant has “ready access” to a firearm in proximity to drugs intended for distribution.
Even if the plea colloquy alone were deficient, the post‐plea record (cash seized, distribution amounts, testimony of gun‐for‐drugs exchange) cured any error and demonstrated no prejudice to Ms. Gray’s substantial rights.
The court therefore affirmed Ms. Gray’s consecutive 120‐month sentence (60 months on the conspiracy and 60 months on the § 924(c)(1) count).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court relied on a line of Tenth Circuit decisions that define and apply the “during and in relation to” nexus under § 924(c)(1):

United States v. Burkley, 513 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008): Held that firearms found within arms’ reach of drugs and cash in a vehicle supply the required nexus, even if the gun is also for self‐defense.
United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009): Emphasized “ready access” to weapons in proximity to drugs supports intent the firearm be available “for use” in drug trafficking.
United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983 (10th Cir. 1993): Confirmed that weapons found under the driver’s seat alongside paraphernalia and cash satisfy the nexus requirement.
United States v. Smith, 508 U.S. 223 (1993): Recognized that trading a firearm for drugs constitutes “use” in furtherance of a drug‐trafficking crime under § 924(c).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court analyzed two key principles:

Rule 11(b)(3) Factual‐Basis Requirement: Before accepting a plea, the district court must ensure the defendant’s admissions cover each element of the offense. If a defendant fails to object to an inadequate factual basis, plain‐error review applies.
§ 924(c)(1) “During and in Relation To” Nexus: To trigger the five‐year mandatory minimum, the government must show the defendant intended the firearm to be available for use in the drug offense. Proximity of gun to drugs/cash and evidence that the firearm facilitated or was exchanged as part of the drug trade satisfy that nexus.

Applying these principles, the court found that Ms. Gray’s admissions—that she possessed distribution‐quantity fentanyl, cash, and a loaded handgun in her car—mirrored Burkley and Winder’s scenarios. Any gap in the plea colloquy was harmless in light of the presentence report and investigative testimony showing cash on hand, pill quantities exceeding personal use, and an exchange of the firearm for drugs.

3. Impact

United States v. Gray reinforces and slightly expands the Tenth Circuit’s framework for § 924(c)(1) plea colloquies:

It confirms that defendants need not admit they were in the midst of a specific transaction at the moment of arrest—possession of a firearm in close physical proximity to drugs intended for distribution suffices.
It underscores that plea hearings need only a minimal factual recitation when a robust record (e.g., PSR, investigative testimony) demonstrates the requisite nexus.
Defense counsel must still ensure a clear record of proximity and intent or risk plain‐error review, but the ruling eases concerns about formalistic colloquy defects.

Future § 924(c)(1) cases in the Tenth Circuit will cite Gray to argue that an active seller‐buy cycle at the moment of stop is unnecessary to uphold the firearm enhancement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Plain‐Error” Review: If a defendant does not object at trial to a Rule 11(b)(3) defect, an appellate court corrects only “plain” (obvious) errors that affect substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings.
Factual Basis for a Guilty Plea: Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3), before accepting a plea, the judge must ensure there is enough admitted or conceded conduct to satisfy each element of the charged crime.
§ 924(c)(1) Enhancement: A mandatory minimum five‐year consecutive sentence applies if a defendant “carries” or “uses” a firearm “during and in relation to” a drug trafficking offense. “During and relation to” means the gun must have played—or was intended to play—an integral role in facilitating or protecting the drug crime.

Conclusion

United States v. Gray crystallizes the Tenth Circuit’s rule that proximity plus intent evidence satisfies the § 924(c)(1) “during and in relation to” nexus in guilty‐plea contexts. By affirming Ms. Gray’s sentence—despite a relatively concise plea colloquy—the court reassures practitioners that a robust factual record (even post‐plea) can cure technical omissions, while reinforcing the importance of demonstrating a firearm’s connection to drug trafficking. Gray thus secures its place as persuasive, clarifying precedent in the realm of plea‐basis requirements and § 924(c) enhancements.