Sentencing; Firearm enhancement; USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1); United States v Brown; Withdrawal from conspiracy; United States v Cox; Clear-improbability showing; United States v Minter; Zero-point offender reduction; USSG § 4C1.1(a); Firearm in connection with offense; § 4C1.1(a)(7); United States v Tajwar; Burden of proof; Safety-valve provisions; 18 USC § 3553(f); § 5C1.2; United States v Reinberg; Substantive reasonableness; § 3553(a); United States v Rayyan; Within-Guidelines sentence; United States v Owen; Codefendant sentencing disparity; United States v Bass

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the district court properly applied the firearm enhancement, properly denied the zero-point offender reduction, and imposed a substantively reasonable within-guidelines sentence. Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine after investigators intercepted mailed cocaine packages and later found cocaine and three firearms in his mother’s home. The district court applied USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), denied the § 4C1.1(a) reduction, and sentenced him to 96 months in prison. On appeal, the court first held that defendant possessed firearms during relevant conduct. It reasoned the conspiracy continued beyond the last mailed package because evidence showed a co-conspirator traveled to Texas after the home search, and defendant failed to prove withdrawal because “mere cessation of . . . activity” does not establish withdrawal without “affirmative action to defeat or disavow” the conspiracy. The court also held that defendant failed to show it was “clearly improbable” the firearms were connected to the offense where photos on his phone showed a firearm, drugs, and package receipts, and cocaine was found in the same home as the firearms. The court next held that defendant bore the burden to establish entitlement to the zero-point reduction, reasoning the guideline applies only if “the defendant meets all of the . . . criteria,” and § 4C1.1(a)(7) parallels safety-valve provisions where defendants bear the burden. He did not meet it because the record showed at least a “minimal” connection between the firearms and the cocaine conspiracy. Finally, the court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable because the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, weighed defendant’s lack of convictions, upbringing, education, and role in a serious cocaine conspiracy, and reasonably rejected his codefendant-disparity argument where the codefendant received reductions and had different personal circumstances. Affirmed.