Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Jesus Reyes-Gallaga VARGAS, a.k.a. Victor Vargas-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 26, 2015.
    Paul Andrew Hemesath, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Victor Vargas-Chavez, Timothy Edward Warriner, Law Office of Timothy E. Warmer, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes .this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Jesus Reyes-Gallága Vargas appeals the district' court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and dealing firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vargas argues that the district court improperly increased his base offense level by two points for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). We disagree. “In applying this enhancement, ‘the court need not find a connection between the firearm and the offense. If it finds that the defendant possessed the weapon during the commission of the offense, the enhancement is appropriate.”’ United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1989)). Vargas admitted to possessing the firearms during the firearm/drug sales. Even if the firearms were for sale, and not protection, Vargas still had access to them, and he could have put them to nefarious ends had he wished. See United States v. Heldberg, 907 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.