United States v. Steve Henry

── United States v. Steve Henry ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11667 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11667 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEVE HENRY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cr-20151-RAR-3 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Steve Henry appeals his total sentence of 60 months’ impris- onment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a con- trolled substance and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. USCA11 Case: 25-11667 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11667 Henry contends the district court clearly erred in denying relief under the safety-valve provision that would provide him with relief from the otherwise mandatory-minimum sentence for his of- fense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). Henry asserts he qualified for safety-valve relief despite receiving a sentencing en- hancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm as the firearms he sold on February 22, 2024, and the firearms he hid behind a chair the night of the April 2, 2024, search of the trap house were unrelated to any drug transactions. As relevant to Henry’s argument, one requirement for safety-valve relief is that the defendant did not possess a firearm “in connection with the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2). Henry is correct that not all defendants who receive the possession of a firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) “are precluded from relief under subsection (a)(2) of the safety valve.” United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 91 (11th Cir. 2013). How- ever, to satisfy the safety-valve requirements, “a defendant who re- ceives a § 2D1.1(b) enhancement must show that it is more likely than not that the possession of the firearm was not in connection with the offense,” which “will undoubtedly be rare.” United States v. Carrasquillo, 4 F.4th 1265, 1272, 1274 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). A defendant possesses a firearm “in connection” with a drug offense pursuant to the safety-valve provision “if the firearm is in proximity to drugs or if the firearm facilitates the drug offense.” Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 96. If the evidence shows as such, “the safety valve is unavailable unless the defendant negates USCA11 Case: 25-11667 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-11667 Opinion of the Court 3 the proof by a preponderance of the evidence, or unless the gov- ernment precludes relief by proving the fact by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. Reflecting this burden of proof, “the presence of a gun within a defendant’s dominion and control during a drug trafficking offense ordinarily will suffice to show . . . the defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the offense.” Id. The cour