Background
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 121 months in prison after treating drugs and firearms recovered from an apartment as relevant conduct for calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range.
Solomon appealed, arguing that the district court improperly found that he constructively possessed the apartment’s contraband and erroneously treated that possession as part of the same course of conduct as his fentanyl-distribution offenses. He also contended that his within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. It held that the district court did not clearly err in finding constructive possession by a preponderance of the evidence. The landlord identified Solomon as the apartment’s lessee; investigators repeatedly saw him leave the apartment immediately before controlled fentanyl sales; and the apartment contained clothing he wore during sales, prerecorded purchase money, and controlled substances he had mentioned during the transactions.
The court also upheld the relevant-conduct finding. Solomon possessed the drugs and firearm alongside drug-distribution paraphernalia, only days after telling a confidential informant that he had additional substances for sale, allowing the district court plausibly to find an ongoing course of drug-trafficking conduct. Because the resulting 121-month sentence fell within the properly calculated Guidelines range, it was presumptively reasonable, and Solomon did not overcome that presumption.
Key Takeaways
- Constructive possession may be established through evidence of control over the premises and knowledge of the contraband, rather than physical possession.
- Drugs and a firearm found at a trafficking location may qualify as relevant conduct when timing, location, and surrounding evidence connect them to the offenses of conviction.
- A sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively substantively reasonable on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give district judges’ factfinding at sentencing. A combination of leasing evidence, surveillance, controlled-buy proceeds, clothing, drugs, and paraphernalia was enough to sustain findings of constructive possession and relevant conduct under clear-error review.
For sentencing practitioners, the opinion also shows how uncharged contraband can materially affect the Guidelines calculation when it forms part of the same identifiable pattern of drug activity as the conviction offenses.