Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03145/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark W. Caldarello
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3145

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mark W. Caldarello, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 25, 2006

Filed: September 5, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark W. Caldarello (Caldarello) appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 (Count 1); and being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 5). The court sentenced Caldarello to

concurrent prison terms of 132 months and 120 months, followed by concurrent

supervised release terms of 5 years and 3 years. On appeal, Caldarello challenges the

district court’s enhancement of his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (two-level

Appellate Case: 05-3145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085783
-2-

increase for possession of firearm), arguing he was not in actual or constructive

possession of the firearm during the commission of the drug offense. Caldarello also

argues for the first time that applying the firearm enhancement when the firearm

transaction was prompted by an undercover detective’s unsolicited inquiry violates

his Due Process rights.

The government moved to dismiss Caldarello’s appeal based upon an appeal

waiver in his plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement, we hold that

Caldarello’s challenge to the firearm enhancement is not within the scope of the

appeal waiver.

We further hold that the undisputed facts show Caldarello constructively

possessed the gun during the drug conspiracy offense by exercising dominion and

control over the vehicle used to transport the firearm and the drugs to the site of the

drug sale. See United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 595 (8th Cir. 1993)

(constructive possession includes dominion over premises); United States v. Luster,

896 F.2d 1122, 1129 (8th Cir. 1990) (constructive possession of item is defined as

“ownership, dominion, or control over the item itself, or dominion over the premises

where the item is located” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Even though

Caldarello showed the gun only after completing the sale of the methamphetamine,

the gun was in a box and it may not have been loaded, we conclude the district court

did not clearly err in finding Caldarello possessed the gun within the meaning of

section 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Tauil-Hernandez, 88 F.3d 576, 580 (8th Cir.

1996) (in conspiracy cases, sufficient nexus is established for dangerous-weapon

enhancement if “the weapon was found in the same location where drugs or drug

paraphernalia were stored, or where part of the conspiracy took place” (citation

omitted)). Additionally, we conclude Caldarello’s due process argument does not

establish plain error. See United States v. Atteberry, 447 F.3d 562, 564 (8th Cir.

2006) (contention not made in district court reviewed for plain error); United States

v. Streeter, 907 F.2d 781, 786-87 (8th Cir. 1990) (where government’s conduct was

Appellate Case: 05-3145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085783
-3-

not outrageous and defendant pled guilty, such government conduct as it might relate

to due process violation or entrapment defense is no longer material to defendant’s

guilt and thus should not mitigate sentence), overruled on other grounds by United

States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Accordingly, we deny the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085783