Background
Derran Maurice McClain, Sr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison.
Officers arresting McClain on unrelated state warrants found a firearm on him after seeing him leave his apartment. Inside the apartment, which McClain shared with his son, officers observed marijuana and digital scales in plain view. A warrant-authorized search uncovered a firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine in a cereal box on top of the refrigerator and a stolen firearm in a closet shared by McClain and his son.
The district court found that McClain jointly and constructively possessed the two firearms found in the apartment. It applied a base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), a stolen-firearm enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), and a three-firearm enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). McClain appealed those Guidelines determinations.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error, the panel held that the record adequately supported the finding that McClain constructively possessed both firearms recovered from the apartment.
The court explained that constructive possession requires the power and intent to exercise dominion and control, and may be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. Mere proximity, presence, or association is insufficient. Here, however, the firearms’ locations in common areas of McClain’s residence, together with statements he made after his arrest, supported findings that he knew about the weapons and exercised dominion and control over them.
Because the district court’s account of the evidence was plausible and its constructive-possession finding was not clearly erroneous, the Fourth Circuit upheld the challenged base offense level and enhancements, as well as the resulting judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Constructive possession may support firearm-related Guidelines calculations even when a weapon is not found on the defendant’s person.
- A firearm’s location in a shared or common area, combined with the defendant’s statements and other circumstantial evidence, can establish knowledge and dominion and control.
- The government must establish a sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence, while appellate review of the underlying factual findings is for clear error.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary line between mere presence near a firearm and constructive possession. In a shared residence, accessibility and location alone may not always suffice, but those facts combined with a defendant’s statements can support possession findings that materially increase the Guidelines calculation.
The unpublished opinion also underscores the deference given to district courts’ plausible factual findings at sentencing. It is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.