Clarifying the Nexus Requirement for §924(c): Application of Mackey Factors in United States v. Mark Ellis

Introduction

United States v. Mark Ellis, decided on April 10, 2025 by the Sixth Circuit, addresses two principal issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support Ellis’s conviction for possessing a firearm “in furtherance” of a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and (2) whether his sentence was procedurally unreasonable under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. A confidential informant arranged a one-gram drug purchase in Clarksville, Tennessee. During the hand-to-hand exchange, the informant observed Ellis’s gun in plain view inside his car. Subsequent searches revealed hundreds of grams of a fentanyl mixture at Ellis’s grandparents’ home and additional stash at an apartment. A jury convicted Ellis on six counts, including § 924(c). On appeal, Ellis contested the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm count and the district court’s understanding of its sentencing discretion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed. First, applying the standard from Jackson v. Virginia, the court found that circumstantial evidence—particularly the video, informant testimony, and a loaded 9 mm pistol found in the same vehicle—satisfied the “in furtherance” requirement. The court analyzed the traditional six “Mackey factors” and concluded that five supported a specific nexus between Ellis’s firearm and the drug sale. Second, the court held that Ellis’s procedural‐reasonableness challenge failed because the district court fully recognized its discretionary role under Gall v. United States and did not err in calculating or applying the advisory Guidelines range.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979): Established the “any rational trier of fact” sufficiency standard.
• United States v. Tragas, 727 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2013): Confirmed that circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction.
• United States v. Paige, 470 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2006): Defined “in furtherance of” in § 924(c) context.
• United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001): Laid out six non-exhaustive factors for assessing nexus.
• United States v. Maya, 966 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020): Emphasized the holistic nature of the Mackey‐factor analysis.
• Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016): Clarified the scope of sufficiency challenges.
• Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Set forth the framework for reviewing procedural reasonableness.
• United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009): Addressed plain‐error review when an issue is not preserved.
• Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(c)(A) (2023) and related cases (e.g., United States v. Harris, 774 F. App’x 937 (6th Cir. 2019)): Explained purity and mixture rules for controlled substances.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeded in two steps:

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence (§ 924(c) Nexus)
   Under Jackson, the evidence must permit “any rational trier of fact” to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt. For § 924(c), the government must show the defendant possessed the firearm with the intent that it “advance, promote, or facilitate” the drug offense. The court applied the six Mackey factors in a holistic assessment:
   • Strategic location: The gun was in the car, visible to the informant during the hand-to-hand exchange.
   • Loaded status: A law-enforcement officer found a loaded 9 mm pistol in the same vehicle hours later.
   • Type of weapon: A handgun commonly used for self-protection in drug deals (neutral to supportive).
   • Legality of possession: Ellis was a felon, making the possession itself unlawful.
   • Type of drug activity: A face-to-face fentanyl sale—situations in which dealers often rely on firearms.
   • Time and circumstances: The firearm’s presence contemporaneous with the sale, on full display.
   Five of six factors strongly favored an “in furtherance” finding. The court rejected Ellis’s claim that mere proximity was insufficient when the weapon was deliberately displayed to protect the transaction.
2. Procedural Reasonableness of the Sentence
   Under Gall, a district court must (1) correctly calculate the Guidelines, (2) treat them as advisory, and (3) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Ellis claimed the court misunderstood its discretion in light of the low fentanyl purity and mixed-quantity arguments. The Sixth Circuit found:
   • The district court explicitly labeled the Guidelines “advisory” and stated it would balance all § 3553(a) factors.
   • The base offense level (30) properly accounted for any detectable fentanyl under § 2D1.1(c)(A).
   • Ellis’s new arguments about purity and sentencing discounts were unpreserved, subject to plain‐error review, and did not show any procedural misstep.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces and clarifies the following points:

• The Sixth Circuit’s commitment to a holistic Mackey-factor test for § 924(c) sufficiency appeals.
• Confirmation that visible, loaded firearms in proximity to a drug sale will satisfy the “in furtherance” requirement, even absent overt threats or brandishing.
• Reaffirmation that sentencing courts retain broad discretion under Gall and need not engage in exhaustive item-by-item recitation so long as the record shows meaningful § 3553(a) consideration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “In furtherance of” (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)): The firearm must have a purpose related to advancing the drug crime—e.g., protection, intimidation, or enforcing the deal.
• Sufficiency of the evidence: A reviewing court asks whether any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
• Sentencing Guidelines (advisory): Recommended ranges based on offense conduct and criminal history; courts may impose higher or lower sentences after considering statutory factors.
• Procedural reasonableness: A sentence is procedurally sound when the court correctly applies the Guidelines, treats them as advisory, and explains its balancing of factors like deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.
• Plain-error review: When a defendant fails to object at trial, an appellate court corrects only “clear or obvious” errors that affect substantial rights.

Conclusion

United States v. Mark Ellis clarifies the application of the § 924(c) nexus test: a firearm kept in plain view, loaded and accessible during a hand-to-hand drug sale, satisfies the “in furtherance” requirement as a matter of law. It also reaffirms that district courts have broad, advisory sentencing discretion and are not required to parse every policy argument so long as they articulate a holistic § 3553(a) analysis. The decision will guide both practitioners and sentencing judges in evaluating similar sufficiency challenges and procedural-reasonableness claims in future drug-and-firearm prosecutions.