Expansion of Relevant Conduct for Firearm Enhancements under USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) and Safety-Valve Ineligibility

Introduction

United States v. Kevin Charles Utnick is a published opinion of the Eleventh Circuit, issued on April 21, 2025. The case arises from the Middle District of Alabama criminal prosecution of Kevin Utnick for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Utnick challenged multiple aspects of his sentencing, including the application of a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), the denial of safety-valve relief, and procedural errors in the district court’s consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that weapons recovered during a related search—though executed months later—were properly deemed “relevant conduct,” that the firearm enhancement was not clearly improbable, and that Utnick’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Summary of the Judgment

Facts: In September 2022, police stopped Utnick, found 68.4 grams of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. In April 2023, a home search yielded an additional 9 grams of methamphetamine, a Glock .45 pistol, ammunition, digital scales and other items.
District Court Proceedings: The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) assigned a base offense level of 30, added 2 levels under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for the firearm, and deducted 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, yielding offense level 29. The statutory mandatory minimum produced a Guidelines range of 120 months. The government filed a § 5K1.1 motion, and the court imposed 100 months’ imprisonment and 15 years supervised release.
Appellate Challenges: Utnick argued (1) that the April 2023 events were not “relevant conduct,” (2) the firearm enhancement was improper, (3) he qualified for safety-valve relief, and (4) the court failed to calculate the Guidelines correctly and address § 3553(a) factors. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all counts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2006): Established that possession of a firearm “connected to” a drug offense triggers a two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) unless clearly improbable.
United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir. 2013): Held that mere proximity of a firearm to drugs can satisfy the government’s burden for the enhancement.
United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2017): Confirmed that weapons and drug-trafficking items found together constitute “conduct associated with the offense.”
United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 2015): Clarified standards of review for Guidelines interpretation and application.
United States v. Carrasquillo, 4 F.4th 1265 (11th Cir. 2021): Explained the safety-valve burden when a defendant possessed a proximate weapon.
United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) & United States v. Fox, 926 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2019): Outlined abuse-of-discretion review for reasonableness.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first addressed whether April 2023 firearm and drug evidence constituted “relevant conduct” for Utnick’s September 2022 offense. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, relevant conduct includes “acts that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.” The district court found that the firearm, scales, plastic bags and hidden compartments at Utnick’s home were consistent with drug-trafficking activities. Citing Carillo-Ayala and George, the appellate court held that spatial and temporal proximity of a weapon to drugs is sufficient to connect it to a drug offense absent clear improbability.

On the two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1), the government need only show that possession of the firearm was “not clearly improbable” in connection with the offense. Utnick failed to meet this burden. His related objections—that the April events were unrelated conduct and thus could not enhance his offense—collapsed once the Court deemed the evidence properly integrated into the offense conduct.

Regarding safety-valve relief (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)), the Court reiterated that a defendant who bears the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement faces a “difficult task” to prove the firearm was unconnected to the offense. Utnick made no plausible showing, so the district court did not clearly err in denying safety-valve eligibility.

Finally, Utnick alleged procedural unreasonableness by failing to address § 3553(a) factors. Because any departure from the 120-month statutory minimum was authorized only by the government’s § 5K1.1 motion, the Court found no reasonable probability of a lower sentence absent formal § 3553(a) discussion. Under plain-error review, no reversible error appeared.

Impact

This decision reinforces Eleventh Circuit authority:

Separately executed searches may yield items that qualify as “relevant conduct” for Guidelines calculations when they form part of a “common scheme.”
Firearm enhancements under § 2D1.1(b)(1) will survive scrutiny if weapons and paraphernalia are found in the context of drug trafficking and nothing makes their link “clearly improbable.”
Defendants seeking safety-valve relief despite proximate weapons face a steep burden to prove disconnection from the narcotics offense.
Lower courts may rely on government § 5K1.1 motions to effect downward departures without an extensive § 3553(a) discussion, provided the record shows awareness of those factors.

Going forward, defense counsel should carefully challenge “relevant conduct” findings by identifying factual or temporal breaks in a defendant’s scheme, and mount specific evidence showing lack of nexus between seized weapons and the charged offense. Prosecutors will lean on this ruling to bundle multiple investigative events into a unified conduct narrative for sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Conduct: Under the Guidelines, all acts forming part of the same criminal plan—whether on one date or several—count toward offense level if they are factually linked.
Firearm Enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(1)): A two-level increase applies if a defendant “possessed” a weapon “in connection with” a drug crime, unless it is “clearly improbable” that the weapon relates to the offense.
Safety Valve (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)): Allows certain non-violent, low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum sentences—but not if a weapon is tied to their crime.
§ 5K1.1 Motion: A government request to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum based on a defendant’s “substantial assistance.”
Plain-Error Review: The most deferential appellate standard, requiring the defendant to show an error, its obviousness, and a reasonable probability that it affected the result.

Conclusion

United States v. Utnick crystallizes the Eleventh Circuit’s stance that offenses spanning multiple dates may be aggregated for sentencing enhancements when they reflect a continuous drug-trafficking operation. Firearms recovered in subsequent searches will almost always trigger the two-level enhancement absent compelling evidence of disconnect. The decision further underscores the uphill battle defendants face in obtaining safety-valve relief when weapons are proximate to narcotics. Finally, it confirms that substantial-assistance motions permit downward departures without extensive recitation of statutory sentencing factors, so long as the record supports the court’s awareness of § 3553(a). Trial and appellate counsel must be prepared to contest relevant-conduct findings and to document a clear disassociation between weapons and unlawful drug activity where it exists.