Denico Hudson, a member of the 'Button Boys' gang, participated in a vertical distribution chain for Glock switches, which are devices that convert semi-automatic pistols into machineguns. The operation involved Isaiah Smith manufacturing over 80 switches using a 3D printer, Demarco Sturgeon acting as a wholesaler, and Hudson serving as the primary retailer who sold the devices to gang members in the Cincinnati area. Hudson used social media and in-person meetups to market the switches, often selling them alongside drugs like fentanyl and cocaine. The switches were used by the gang to commit shootings and to protect their drug trafficking operations. Hudson pleaded guilty to transporting an unregistered gun and possessing and transferring a machinegun. At sentencing, the district court applied a six-level enhancement for trafficking at least 25 switches and a four-level enhancement for connecting the devices to other felonies, resulting in a 108-month prison sentence.
The Sixth Circuit addressed three main arguments raised by Hudson. First, regarding the '25+' enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C), the court applied the 'relevant conduct' principles of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. The court reasoned that because Hudson, Sturgeon, and Smith operated as a single enterprise with a common purpose and modus operandi, Hudson was responsible for the entire inventory of switches distributed by the group, not just the specific number he personally sold. The court found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the total number of switches exceeded 25. Second, the court addressed the enhancement for possessing firearms in connection with another felony under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court held that the enhancement applied because Hudson sold switches with knowledge or reason to believe they would be used in connection with drug trafficking and shootings. The court emphasized that the switches facilitated these felonies, noting that drug dealers often use firearms to protect their wares and that Hudson's own conduct, including advertising both products together, demonstrated this connection. Third, the court rejected Hudson's claim for a minor role adjustment under § 3B1.2(b). The court found that Hudson bore the burden of proving he was a minor participant but failed to do so. Evidence showed Hudson was the 'fulcrum' of the operation, acting as a middleman, participating in planning, and having a proprietary interest in the sales, which disqualified him from a role reduction.
The decision reinforces the application of relevant conduct principles in sentencing for firearms offenses, ensuring that defendants in a joint criminal enterprise are held accountable for the total scope of the operation. It clarifies that selling machinegun conversion devices to gang members who use them for drug trafficking and violence will trigger significant sentencing enhancements. The ruling leaves no open questions regarding the specific enhancements applied in this case, as the court affirmed the district court's calculation and denial of a minor role adjustment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download