Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-10-03012/USCOURTS-caDC-10-03012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lenin Marks Erazo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 9, 2010 Decided January 7, 2011

No. 10-3012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

LENIN MARKS ERAZO,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:08-cr-00083)

H. Heather Shaner, appointed bythe court, argued the cause

for the appellant.

JayApperson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for

the appellee. Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and

Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino and Katherine M. Kelly,

Assistant U.S. Attorneys, were on brief. Roy W. McLeese III,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and

RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 1 of 8
2

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant

Lenin Erazo (Erazo) pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful

distribution of 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). The district court

sentenced him to sixty-four months’ incarceration followed by

forty-eight months’ supervised release, along with a special

assessment of $100 and an order to comply with deportation

directives. On appeal, Erazo argues that the district court erred

in finding him ineligible for sentencing under the “safety valve”

provision set forth in section 5C1.2 of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines or U.S.S.G.). We affirm the

district court as explained below. 

I. 

On March 6, 2008, Erazo arranged by telephone to sell two

kilograms of powder cocaine to a confidential informant (CI)

working for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police

Department. Shortly after 7 p.m. Erazo and two co-defendants, 1

Alcides Guerra-Bautista and Juan Portillo, arrived at a parking

lot in Northeast Washington, D.C. to meet with the putative

buyers—the CI and an undercover police detective. Erazo drove

himself in a Toyota Corolla. His confederates, Bautista and

Portillo, arrived separately in a black Ford pickup truck. The CI

and detective had already arrived in an undercover police van

equipped with audio and video equipment. Erazo then stepped

out of his vehicle, approached the undercover police van and sat

down in the front passenger seat next to the detective. Inside the

van, Erazo discussed the cocaine with the detective, telling him

in Spanish, “Yes, the drugs are good, the drugs are good.” After

The background facts are taken from Erazo and Portillo’s plea

1

hearing held on August 21, 2008 and Erazo’s subsequent sentencing

hearing on September 15, 2009.

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 2 of 8
3

a short conversation, Erazo called out in Spanish, “Bring the

[stuff].” Bautista and Portillo were still sitting in the pickup

truck and, on hearing Erazo’s command, Bautista withdrew a

bag of cocaine from the rear of the truck and took it over to the

van. Portillo accompanied him. Erazo took the bag and Bautista

and Portillo sat down in the van’s back seat. Erazo told the

detective that he was unable to transport the cocaine himself

because he did not have a driver’s license.

Erazo and the undercover detective consummated the

transaction once all three co-defendants were inside the van,

with Erazo handing over about 1.5 kilograms of cocaine to the

detective. The CI gave cash to Erazo, telling him that it was

$8000. The detective then said he had to retrieve the rest of the

money and exited the van. At that moment, a police team

converged on the vehicle and placed all three co-defendants

under arrest.

When the police searched Portillo incident to his arrest, they

discovered a Raven Arms .25 caliber pistol around the cuff of

his pants. Portillo later testified that he had been carrying the

weapon tucked into his waistband and “when the police threw

themselves on me” it fell down his pants-leg. The pistol was

loaded with five rounds of ammunition. Police also recovered a

napkin containing thirty-one rounds of .25 caliber ammunition

and a black scale from the back seat of the van where Portillo

and Bautista had been sitting. 

Erazo pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 500

grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), and agreed to a two-level sentence

enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon pursuant to

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 3 of 8
4

section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines. Erazo argued, however, 2

that he was eligible for the “safety valve” provision of the

Guidelines, which requires that a defendant be sentenced

“without regard to any statutory minimum sentence” if he meets

certain enumerated criteria. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f). In particular, Erazo argued that he could establish

under subpart (a)(2) of the safety valve provision that he did

“not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a

firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another

participant to do so) in connection with the offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a)(2). The district court held an evidentiary hearing to

determine whether Erazo was eligible for the safety valve. The

Government called Portillo to testify about how he came into

possession of the pistol that the police found on him at the

March 6, 2008 drug deal.

Portillo testified that, before his arrest, he had been staying

at a friend’s two-bedroom apartment in nearby Maryland,

sleeping on the floor of one of the bedrooms. It was there that

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) provides in pertinent part for a two-level

2

enhancement in base offense level “[i]f a dangerous weapon

(including a firearm) was possessed.” This circuit has not yet decided

whether imposition of an enhancement under section 2D1.1(b)(1)

automatically disqualifies a defendant from being eligible for the

safety valve. See United States v. Plunkett, 125 F.3d 873, 876 n.6

(D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 895 (1998). Several other

circuits have held that sections 2D1.1(b)(1) and 5C1.2 need not be

mutually exclusive. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 87,

90-92 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Zavalza-Rodriguez, 379 F.3d

1182, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2004); United States v. Bolka, 355 F.3d 909,

914 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Nelson, 222 F.3d 545, 549-51

(9th Cir. 2000). We do not reach the question here because it is

unnecessary to our disposition.

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 4 of 8
5

Portillo met Erazo, who was living in the other bedroom. On

March 6, 2008 Portillo was in the apartment with Bautista, a

friend from Guatemala, when Bautista received a telephone call

from Erazo. Erazo asked to speak to Portillo. Once Portillo came

on the line, Erazo asked him for a “favor”: to get a gun out of

Erazo’s bedroom and bring it to him. According to Erazo, the

gun was under Erazo’s bed. Portillo found the gun under Erazo’s

bed and shortly thereafter, with the pistol in his waistband,

accompanied Bautista in the pickup truck to the meeting with

Erazo and his buyers.

According to Portillo, however, he was duped into

becoming an unwitting participant in the drug deal. As Portillo

recounted, Erazo lied about the reason he asked Portillo to

retrieve his gun, saying that he had arranged to sell the pistol

together with his own car and needed a ride home. Portillo also

disputed the sequence of events in the Government’s factual

proffer. Portillo testified that he did not hear Erazo yell, “Bring

the [stuff].” Instead, Portillo was in the pickup truck having a

telephone conversation with his girlfriend when the CI

approached the truck and motioned for Bautista and Portillo to

join them in the van. 

II. 

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred

in finding Erazo ineligible for safety valve relief under section

5C1.2 of the Guidelines. We review the district court’s

sentencing decision under the three-part scheme established by

18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). “ ‘Purely legal questions are reviewed de

novo; factual findings are to be affirmed unless “clearly

erroneous”; and we are to give “due deference” to the district

court’s application of the guidelines to facts.’ ” United States v.

Day, 524 F.3d 1361, 1367 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting United

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 5 of 8
6

States v. Goodwin, 317 F.3d 293, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2003)), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 295 (2008).

The facts plainly manifest that Erazo “induce[d] another

participant”—namely, Portillo—to “possess a firearm . . . in

connection with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2). Portillo’s

testimony vividly illustrates the extent to which Erazo directed

Portillo’s actions. As a “favor” to Erazo, a man he had met just

a few days before, Portillo retrieved from Erazo’s bedroom a

gun hidden under the bed as Erazo had told him and then took

the gun to a location Erazo specified. Moreover, Portillo’s

testimony demonstrates that his possession of the firearm was

“in connection with” the offense. Under section 5C1.2, the

firearm need only “facilitate, or have the potential of facilitating,

the drug trafficking offense.” United States v. DeJesus, 219 F.3d

117, 122 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Smith v. United States, 508

U.S. 223, 238 (1993)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1001 (2000). We

have held, in construing a similar provision in 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)—which imposes criminal liability for “us[ing] or

carr[ying] a firearm” “during and in relation to any crime of

violence or drug trafficking crime”—that the requisite

connection with the underlying offense is established if the

weapon was used or carried “in order to protect contraband.”

United States v. Evans, 888 F.2d 891, 896 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert.

denied, 494 U.S. 1019 (1990); see also United States v.

Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding that

firearm was used or possessed “in connection with” offense

within meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) where loaded weapon

was found near cache of drugs and drug paraphernalia and “was

readily available . . . to protect [the defendant’s] drug-related

activities”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 856 (1994). Here, it is

sufficient to establish Erazo’s ineligibility for the safety valve

provision that Portillo carried a loaded pistol in the same vehicle

used to transport the cocaine to the site of the illegal transaction

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 6 of 8
7

at Erazo’s request, and when Erazo was planning a drug deal at

the site, and that Portillo had the pistol inside the van at the

moment the drugs and money changed hands. 

Erazo contends, however, that the district court erred by

crediting the portion of Portillo’s testimony in which he

described Erazo’s instructions regarding the gun but refusing to

credit Portillo’s claims that he was unaware of the true reason

for carrying the weapon. We have held, however, that a district

court’s credibility determinations are entitled to “ ‘the greatest

deference,’ ” United States v. Hart, 324 F.3d 740, 747 (D.C. Cir.

2003) (quoting Carter v. Bennett, 840 F.2d 63, 67 (D.C. Cir.

1988)), and the court is always free to credit some portions of

testimony while disregarding others. See Garvey Marine, Inc. v.

NLRB, 245 F.3d 819, 825 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“The trier of fact is

surely entitled . . . to credit some but not all of a witness’s

testimony . . . .”). Indeed, the district court here parsed Portillo’s

testimony with evident care, finding “some of these

portions—what’s the word—were incredible,” but crediting

other portions—in particular, the answers that Portillo gave to

questions posed directly by the court. Sentencing Tr. at 33, 36,

United States v. Erazo, No. 08-083 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2010). The

district judge explained that “the Court did have the opportunity

to look [Portillo] in the eye and ask him questions, focus his

attention and to receive from Mr. Portillo what the Court

believes was truthful testimony.” Id. at 36. We cannot say that

the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. 

Erazo also likens his appeal to In re Sealed Case, in which

we found a defendant eligible for the safety valve provision even

though his co-conspirator in an illegal narcotics transaction

possessed a firearm in connection with the offense. 105 F.3d

1460, 1462-65 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The defendant had waited

inside a restaurant while his co-conspirator carried out the

transaction in a nearby parked car, keeping a revolver hidden

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 7 of 8
8

beneath the driver’s seat. Id. at 1461. Although the defendant

was aware of the gun in the nearby car, he was never in physical

proximity to it nor was there any other “additional evidence

linking the participant to the weapon” to support his constructive

possession. Id. at 1463-65. Merely to recite the facts from In re

Sealed Case, however, is to distinguish that case from the events

here. Portillo had the gun in the van where the deal took place,

thus putting it in proximity to Erazo. Moreover, unlike the

defendant in In re Sealed Case who had never even held the gun

that was found in his co-conspirator’s car, id. at 1465 (“And

nothing in the record establishes that appellant had ever held the

gun . . . .”), it was Erazo who owned the pistol and stored it

underneath his bed and Erazo who directed Portillo to retrieve

the pistol and carry it to the scene of a drug deal. A more apt

comparison is the Eighth Circuit case, United States v. Denis, in

which the defendant set up a deal with undercover law

enforcement officers to exchange a few ounces of cocaine base

for a machine gun and then dispatched two associates in his

stead to make the trade. 560 F.3d 872, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2009),

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 314 (2009). The Eighth Circuit held that

the defendant had “induced” another participant to possess the

machine gun and thus was ineligible for the safety valve. Id. at

873-74. Just so here. 

For the foregoing reasons, Erazo’s sentence is affirmed. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #10-3012 Document #1286743 Filed: 01/07/2011 Page 8 of 8