Plain-Meaning Interpretation of “In Connection With” Under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

Introduction

United States v. Alphonso L. James is a pivotal Eleventh Circuit decision clarifying how sentencing courts must interpret the phrase “in connection with” in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Defendant‐Appellant Alphonso James had pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8)). At sentencing the district court imposed a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) on the ground that James’s firearm was found “in connection with” drug trafficking—relying in part on the Sentencing Guidelines’ commentary, Application Note 14(B). James appealed, arguing that Note 14(B) did not warrant deference because the Guideline’s text was ambiguous and the commentary was an unreasonable interpretation.

The Eleventh Circuit confronted two central issues:

Whether the phrase “in connection with” in § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is genuinely ambiguous, thereby permitting deference to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary under Auer/Seminole Rock and Kisor frameworks;
Whether, on the facts presented, James’s possession of a firearm was sufficiently related to a drug-trafficking offense to warrant the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals first held that the phrase “in connection with” is not ambiguous in the context of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Drawing on dictionary definitions and Eleventh Circuit precedent (notably Smith v. United States, Carillo-Ayala, and Martinez), the Court concluded that Congress meant “in connection with” to encompass any contextual, causal, or logical relationship between firearm possession and another felony. Having found no genuine ambiguity, the court determined that deference to Application Note 14(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines commentary was unwarranted under Kisor v. Wilkie. Nonetheless, the Court affirmed James’s sentence because, under the plain-meaning test, the district court’s factual findings established that James possessed a firearm in connection with drug trafficking. The close physical proximity of cocaine/fentanyl and the weapon, coupled with observing James engage in drug transactions while wearing the bag containing the gun, sufficed to uphold the four-level enhancement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision surveyed both Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit authority to delimit “in connection with” and to assess the proper role of Guidelines commentary.

Bowles v. Seminole Rock (1945) and Auer v. Robbins (1997): established deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation when the text is genuinely ambiguous.
Kisor v. Wilkie (2019): refined Auer deference, prescribing a three-step inquiry—textual ambiguity, reasonableness of the agency interpretation, and a contextual inquiry into the agency’s interpretive expertise.
United States v. Smith (1993): interpreted “in relation to” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), holding that the firearm must “facilitate, or have the potential of facilitating” the underlying crime, and that presence cannot be accidental or coincidental.
United States v. Carillo-Ayala (2013), United States v. Martinez (2020), and United States v. Rhind (2002): applied Smith’s principles to various contexts, consistently giving “in connection with” a broad, facilitative interpretation.
United States v. Dupree (2023, en banc): confirmed that Kisor applies to Sentencing Guidelines commentary and set forth the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to deference.
United States v. Brooks (2024): reaffirmed that “in connection with” is broad but bounded by facilitation principles derived from Smith.
United States v. Perez (3d Cir. 2021): the only circuit to hold the Guideline ambiguous at step one; the Eleventh Circuit expressly declined its reasoning here.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning unfolded in two major steps:

Ambiguity Analysis (Kisor Step One) The Court examined the plain meaning of “in connection with” (drawing on multiple dictionaries) and the body of precedent interpreting that phrase in related statutes and Guidelines provisions. It found a consistent, workable principle: the firearm must have a contextual, causal, or logical relationship to another felony offense—i.e., it facilitates, or has the potential to facilitate, that offense. Because this plain meaning resolved the interpretive question, the Court held the Guideline was not genuinely ambiguous and declined any deference to Application Note 14(B).
Application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) Regardless of commentary, the Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Those findings included:
- Detectives saw James engage in apparent drug transactions while wearing the cross-body bag later recovered containing the firearm and ammunition;
- James reached into the bag to access its contents (both drugs and gun) as officers followed;
- The vehicle was very small, making the gun and controlled substances in extremely close proximity;
- DNA analysis confirmed James’s possession of the firearm.
These facts demonstrated a logical and spatial relationship: the firearm was present to protect or facilitate drug trafficking, not by accident. Thus, the four-level enhancement was properly applied.

Impact

United States v. James carries significant implications for federal sentencing practice:

Clarifies that courts must first exhaust traditional tools of construction before consulting Sentencing Guidelines commentary.
Reaffirms that commentary cannot override unambiguous Guideline text.
Confirms the broad, facilitative interpretation of “in connection with,” providing guidance on the types of factual patterns likely to trigger the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement.
Limits lower-court reliance on technical proximity tests derived solely from Application Note 14(B) when the text already encompasses those situations.
May prompt sentencing courts to place greater emphasis on plain-text analysis of the Guidelines and less on commentary in future disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

For readers less familiar with sentencing law, the following simplifications may help:

Auer/Seminole Rock Deference: A rule that a court will generally accept an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation if the regulation is truly unclear.
Kisor v. Wilkie Test: A three-step approach requiring (1) genuine textual ambiguity, (2) reasonableness of the agency’s interpretation, and (3) a contextual inquiry into the agency’s expertise.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B): A provision adding four levels to a defendant’s sentencing range if a firearm was used or possessed “in connection with” another felony—most often drug trafficking.
Application Note 14(B): A commentary provision stating that if a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs during a trafficking offense, the enhancement applies.
Presentence Investigation Report (PSI): A report prepared by probation officers summarizing a defendant’s offense conduct, criminal history, and recommended sentencing range under the Guidelines.

Conclusion

United States v. Alphonso James decisively holds that the phrase “in connection with” in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is unambiguous and must be given its ordinary, broad meaning—requiring a contextual, causal, or logical nexus between firearm possession and another felony offense. Sentencing courts may not bypass this plain-text interpretation by deferring to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary under Auer/Seminole Rock or Kisor unless genuine ambiguity remains after traditional interpretive tools are exhausted. On the merits, James’s possession of a firearm while conducting drug transactions, coupled with the weapon’s proximity to controlled substances, easily met the facilitation test, justifying the four-level enhancement.

This decision underscores the primacy of plain-text analysis in federal sentencing and sets clear guardrails on when—and when not—to rely on Guidelines commentary. It will guide both district and appellate courts in future § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) disputes and contributes to greater consistency and predictability in federal sentencing law.