Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04087/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin David Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JACK LOSEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

JAMES J. SULLIVAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JIM BARKLEY, FRANK STRICKLER, 

TERRY SMITH, LT., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

STEVEN J . DAVIES, D. BROWNFIELD, ) 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

APPEALS 

F I ·-' .Li lJ , United Sta~ C.ou.'.";.Ol Ap;~~,.., Ter::.:.'1 C:1.:::ui~ 

JUL O 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECY.:E?. 

Clerl:: 

No. 92-3089 

(D.C. No. 89-3375-S) 

( D. Kan . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1 . 9 . The case i s therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establi shing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 1
This appeal is from an order of the district court denying 

all relief in a case in which plaintiff Losee alleges that his 

civil rights pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 were violated during 

disciplinary proceedings at Lansing Correctional Facility in 

Lansing, Kansas. The district court found the appeal frivolous 

and refused plaintiff leave to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

affirm. 

Plaintiff's prose complaint alleges that he was denied the 

opportunity to present witnesses and to be represented by counsel 

in a disciplinary proceeding. Plaintiff alleges that some of the 

testimony at the disciplinary proceeding was perjured and that he 

was precluded from presenting witnesses that would refute the 

alleged perjured testimony. Having reviewed the record in this 

case, we agree with the district court that the denial of some of 

the witnesses in this matter was not so critical to the 

proceedings that it constituted a denial of due process. See 

Wolff~ McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Plaintiff was permitted 

to testify and to confront the reporting official at the hearing. 

The acceptance of the proffer of the testimony at plaintiff's 

hearing was a means by which the competing interests of the 

plaintiff within the institution were constitutionally met . 

Plaintiff also contends that the district court erred in 

finding that he did not lose good time credits as a result of this 

disciplinary action. After reviewing the district court's order, 

we conclude that the district court did not base its decision on 

whether or not plaintiff lost good time credits. Instead, the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 2
district court applied the appropriate due process requirements to 

the facts of this case. 

We agree that this appeal is frivolous and therefore DENY the 

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS because 

the plaintiff failed to make a rational argument. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 3
UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

JUL O 8 1992 

ROB~RT L. HOECKEF.. 

Clerl: · 

vs. 

BENJAMIN DAVID MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4087 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-185A) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, District 

Judge ... 

Defendant Benjamin Martinez claims on appeal that the 

Government presented insufficient evidence at trial to support 

his conviction for using or carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c). We affirm. 

During the investigation of another drug trafficker, Salt 

Lake City Police detectives learned that the defendant was 

involved in the sale of marijuana. Tr. II, 11. The detectives 

- obtained a search warrant for Mr. Martinez's residence and 

executed it on September 19, 1990. Tr. II, 10. During that 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3. 

** The Honorable John E. Conway, United States District Judge, 

District of New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 4
search Police found a large sum of money in a nightstand and a 

.22 caliber Luger semiautomatic pistol and marijuana in a bedroom 

closet. Tr. II, 21 and 25. 

The grand jury issued a two-count indictment against the 

defendant. Count One charged the defendant with possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 

u.s. c. § 841(a) (1). Count Two of the indictment charged Martinez 

with carrying or using a firearm during drug trafficking. 

Martinez pled guilty to the charge of possession of a controlled 

substance with the intent to distribute, and this plea formed the 

predicate offense for the conviction of using or carrying a 

firearm during a drug trafficking crime. The defendant then 

waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court found Martinez 

guilty on the firearm charge which carries a mandatory five-year 

imprisonment penalty. See 18 u.s.c. § 924(c) (1) . 

The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the conclusion that he "used" or "carried" a firearm in 

connection with his drug trafficking activities. Evidence is 

sufficient if a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt. U. S . v. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 

(10th Cir. 1989). The reviewing court must evaluate the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the government. U.S. v. Alonso, 

790 F.2d 1489, 1492 (10th Cir. 1986). All reasonable inferences 

and credibility choices are made in favor of the verdict. U.S. 

v. Massey. 687 F.2d 1348, 1354 (10th Cir. 1982). 

The trial court received evidence that upon entering 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 5
Martinez's residence, detectives found two boxes of sandwich 

bags, a triple beam scale, and some marijuana in a front bedroom. 

Tr. II, 13-15. The defendant admittedly weighed out the 

marijuana and sold drugs from this bedroom. Tr. II, 102. 

The defendant was arrested, however, in a back bedroom 

located on the second floor of the residence. This 12' X 12' 

bedroom contained a sliding door rectangular closet approximately 

7' X 3'. Tr. II, 20, 26, 34 & 36. On the upper shelf of the 

closet, detectives found a box containing ten one-ounce bags of 

marijuana . Tr. II, 20 . The unloaded pistol was discovered in an 

inside pocket of a Levi jacket hanging in the closet. Tr. II, 

25. A clip holding eight rounds of ammunition was located in the 

other inside pocket of the jacket. Tr. II, 25. The marijuanafilled box and the Levi jacket were on opposite sides of the 

closet about five feet apart. Tr. II, 35. 

In a nightstand drawer, detectives discovered $4269 . Most 

of the currency was in $100 bills and constituted earnings 

derived from the sale of marijuana. Tr. II, 34, 99-100. Only 

twelve feet separated the nightstand from the pistol. Tr. II, 

42. At the time of arrest, the defendant was positioned seven 

feet from the-money, five feet fr~m the pistol and seven feet 

from the marijuana . Tr. II, 43. 

The government sought to prove that the defendant "used" 

rather than "carried" a firearm during drug trafficking. A 

defendant "uses" a firearm within the meaning of 18 u.s.c. 

§ 924(c) (1) when: (1) he has "ready access" to the firearm, and 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 6
(2) the firearm was integral to the drug trafficking and its 

availability increased the likelihood that the undertaking would 

succeed. U. S. v . McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 675 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Evidence of the first element, "ready access", must 

demonstrate that the firearm was available to the defendant in 

the vicinity where the drug trafficking occurred. U.S. v. 

Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1298 (10th Cir. 1991) . The defendant 

concedes that this element may have been satisfied and that the 

unloaded condition of the gun does not preclude a finding of 

availability. Appellant's Brief at 8. Clearly the Court could 

find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had "ready 

access" to the firearm. 

The second element of "use" requires the government to show 

a nexus between the firearm and drug trafficking. ~ at 1297. 

Firearms are "used" to facilitate illegal drug activities when 

they are available to protect the dealers, their products and 

their proceeds. See U.S . v. Moore, 919 F . 2d 1471 , 1475 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Moreover, the simple availability of a firearm may 

bolster the confidence of a drug dealer into entering 

transactions he would otherwise be reluctant to undertake. See 

id. Even in the absence of "firing, brandishing or displaying" 

the firearm, "use" of the firearm may be established by 

circumstantial evidence. U.S. v. Ross, 920 F.2d 1530, 1536 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Because the defendant concedes he had been dealing 

marijuana for a year prior to his arrest, the sole issue is 

whether the evidence demonstrated an adequate connection between 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 7
the gun and the marijuana dealing. 

The Parrish court established the presumption of a nexus 

between a firearm and drug trafficking when the government 

demonstrates "ready access" to a firearm by an individual dealing 

drugs. See Parrish, 925 F.2d at 1298. Unlike the defendant in 

Parrish, however, Martinez testified that he never used the 

firearm during any drug transaction. Tr. II, 94. He also 

offered testimony that the gun was purchased for target shooting 

and had been used for recreation. Tr. II, 63. Martinez asserts 

that once he produced evidence of an alternative use for the 

firearm, the Parrish presumption dissipated and no longer 

supports the nexus finding by the trial court. 

We need not consider the continuing viability of the 

presumption once the Defendant presented evidence of a 

"recreational" purpose for the gun because sufficient independent 

evidence supports a nexus finding. The government produced 

evidence impeaching Defendant's proffered explanation for the 

firearm's presence in the closet. The trial court was not 

obligated to accept defendant's testimony or evidence as to the 

gun's function in whole or part. Moreover, the trial court could 

find that the _gun was available f.or more than one purpgse. A 

"recreational" function for the firearm did not preclude a 

finding that the gun served a secondary "business-related" 

purpose. 

As stated above, the evidence must be evaluated in the light 

most favorable to the government, making all inferences and 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 8
resolving all credibility questions in favor of the verdict. 

Although the gun was found unloaded, the gun and ammunition were 

stored in two different pockets of the same jacket. The 

defendant stored his firearm and it's ammunition in a manner 

which would allow the firearm to be easily obtained, loaded and 

fired. The defendant contended that his son was having problems 

with local gangs and that the gun served as protection. Tr. II, 

63. He stated that he only sold drugs to his friends and was 

unafraid of his customers. Yet, Martinez further testified that 

in an effort to protect his family from his drug trafficking 

activities, he conducted his drug business in the front of the 

house. Tr. II, 103-104. 

The relatively small quantity of ammunition and manner in 

which the gun was stored may be considered more consistent with 

protective rather than recreational use. The close proximity of 

the weapon to the Defendant's "stash" of drugs and money also 

supports an inference of that the defendant saw the gun as a 

means to protect his illegal enterprise. When viewed in the 

light most favorable to the government, sufficient evidence 

supports the verdict of guilty on the firearm charge. 

AFFIRMED. 

' 

Entered for the Court 

John E. Conway 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4087 Document: 010110259126 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 9