United States v. Butler – Sixth Circuit Clarifies “Dominion” in Constructive Possession and Limits Remote Drug-Use Evidence

Introduction

The unpublished opinion in United States v. Patrick Dillon Butler (6th Cir. July 25 2025) affirms a Tennessee federal jury verdict convicting Patrick Butler of three counts: (1) felon in possession of a firearm, (2) possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

The appeal raised two primary questions:

Whether the evidence was legally sufficient on each count, focusing on the definition of constructive possession, the inference of intent to distribute from a small drug quantity, and the nexus between a firearm and drug trafficking.
Whether the district court violated Butler’s Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense by excluding testimony from his mother about the quantity of drugs she had seen him consume eight years earlier.

Circuit Judge Helene N. White, writing for a unanimous panel (White, Larsen, & Murphy, JJ.), found the Government’s proof sufficient and the evidentiary ruling proper, thereby clarifying two doctrinal points:

“Dominion” over a vehicle – and thus constructive possession of items inside – may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as jail calls, text messages, and evasive statements, even when the vehicle is registered to another person.
Evidence of a defendant’s historic drug-use habits is too remote to be admissible when offered solely to negate intent to distribute, absent a closer temporal or factual nexus.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying the familiar Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court held that a rational juror could find each element of the three offenses proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel distinguished prior precedent (United States v. Bailey) and emphasized that Butler’s exclusive control of the Jeep, his possession of drug-distribution paraphernalia, and the loaded revolver within reach collectively supported the verdict.

On the evidentiary issue, the court ruled that barring Butler’s mother’s testimony was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate; the proffered evidence concerned drug use in 2017, while the charged conduct occurred in 2021. Even if admitted, the testimony would not have created reasonable doubt given the totality of incriminating evidence.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) – Provides the constitutional benchmark for sufficiency-of-evidence review (“any rational trier of fact”).
United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2008) & United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) – Define constructive possession as the power and intent to exert control.
United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009) – Warns that constructive possession cannot be inferred from mere presence in a borrowed car; distinguished here because Butler’s control was exclusive and reinforced by incriminating statements.
United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2010) & United States v. Garth, 965 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020) – Allow intent to distribute to be inferred from quantity and circumstantial “dealer” factors.
United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Kelsor, 665 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2011); United States v. Maya, 966 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020) – Develop the “in furtherance of” standard for § 924(c) firearm offenses.
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006); United States v. Reynolds, 86 F.4th 332 (6th Cir. 2023) – Articulate limits on a defendant’s right to present evidence under the Sixth Amendment when rules of evidence bar remote or speculative material.

Collectively, these authorities guided the panel’s analysis on constructive possession, drug-distribution inferences, firearm nexus, and the constitutional dimension of evidentiary exclusions.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Constructive Possession of the Revolver

The core issue was whether Butler “possessed” the firearm found in the Jeep’s glovebox. The court deployed a two-step analysis:

Exclusive Control of Premises. Although the Jeep was owned by Butler’s father, multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence – Butler referring to it as “my Jeep,” the grandmother’s belief that it was his, and Butler’s instruction from jail to retrieve items from “my truck” – allowed jurors to find exclusive dominion.
Incriminating Circumstances. Butler’s attempt to downplay his connection (“tell them I was in Harry’s car”) and the presence of an air compressor matching his jail message further supported knowledge and control.

Thus, the court refined the concept of “dominion” by recognizing that ownership documents are not dispositive; control may be proven through usage patterns, familial statements, and post-arrest communications.

b. Intent to Distribute 2.26 Grams of Methamphetamine

While 2.26 grams is below the stereotypical dealer quantity, the court treated quantity as only one of several “Garth factors.” The distribution inference rested on:

Three separate bags of methamphetamine.
Fourteen empty baggies, a digital scale, and $352 cash.
Expert testimony that dealers often buy an “8-ball” (3.5 g), split it for resale, and keep a portion for personal use.

The panel held that this constellation of facts reasonably suggested imminent distribution, not mere personal consumption.

c. Firearm “in Furtherance of” Drug Trafficking

Applying Maya, the court asked whether the revolver’s possession “promoted or facilitated” Butler’s drug activity. Critical facts included:

Loaded status and immediate accessibility in the glovebox.
Illegal possession by a felon, undercutting any lawful purpose theory.
Agent testimony about dealers arming themselves for protection of product and proceeds.

The court therefore found the required nexus between the gun and the drug offense.

d. Exclusion of Remote Drug-Use Testimony

Butler sought to show that he had consumed large quantities of methamphetamine in 2017, rendering 2.26 g consistent with personal use. The district court deemed this testimony irrelevant due to temporal remoteness (four years). On appeal:

The Sixth Amendment inquiry required Butler to show the exclusion was arbitrary and would likely produce reasonable doubt.
The panel held the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules 401 & 403) justify exclusion of distant, minimally probative conduct.
Even assuming admissibility, other evidence (scales, baggies, firearm) would still sustain the verdict, defeating the “reasonable doubt” prong.

3. Potential Impact on Future Litigation

Although designated “Not Recommended for Publication,” the opinion provides persuasive authority within the Sixth Circuit, particularly for:

Constructive Possession Cases: Prosecutors may rely more heavily on jail calls, text messages, or familial statements to establish dominion over a vehicle or residence. Defense counsel must be prepared to counteract such circumstantial chains.
Small-Quantity Distribution Charges: The decision reaffirms that distribution intent can be inferred from packaging and paraphernalia even when drug weight is low.
Evidence Strategy: Litigants should anticipate stricter scrutiny of historical drug-use evidence offered to rebut intent. The temporal proximity of such evidence now carries explicit weight.
§ 924(c) Nexus: The panel underscores that a loaded gun within arm’s reach, coupled with illegal possession, will ordinarily suffice to show “furtherance” unless the defense can offer an alternative, innocent explanation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Constructive Possession: You need not physically hold an item; it is enough that you could exercise control over it and intend to do so.
Dominion and Control: Practical authority—such as driving a car regularly—can equal legal control, regardless of formal ownership.
Intent to Distribute: Courts look at packaging, tools of the trade (scales, baggies), cash, and weapons, not simply the drug weight.
“In Furtherance of” (§ 924(c)): The firearm must advance or protect the drug crime—proximity, accessibility, and loaded status are key indicators.
Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense: Broad but not unlimited; evidence may be excluded if its probative value is weak, speculative, or remote.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Butler strengthens the Government’s hand in constructive possession and § 924(c) prosecutions by illustrating how modern digital and recorded evidence can establish dominion and nexus. Simultaneously, it erects a higher hurdle for defendants seeking to admit historical drug-use evidence to negate distribution intent. The ruling thus harmonizes prior precedents while providing a practical roadmap for litigants navigating similar factual landscapes.

In the broader legal context, the opinion reinforces two principles: (1) dominion may be proven through conduct and communications rather than ownership paperwork, and (2) remoteness remains a potent bar to evidence if its capacity to generate reasonable doubt is speculative. Future practitioners should heed these clarifications when constructing both prosecution strategies and defense theories in drug-firearm cases.