Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04039/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Mendoza-Mesa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-4039

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Ramon Mendoza-Mesa, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: October 8, 2004 

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Ramon Mendoza-Mesa appeals the district court's1

 enhancement of his

sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking

crime. We affirm.

I. Background

On February 5, 2002, authorities arrested Mendoza-Mesa and his co-defendant,

Ramero Pineda, following a controlled-buy covert drug operation. Mendoza-Mesa

Appellate Case: 02-4039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819965 
2

 For the volume of drugs involved with this crime, the United States

Sentencing Guideline ("U.S.S.G.") § 2D1.1 sets Mendoza-Mesa's base offense level

-2-

and Pineda sold one pound of methamphetamine for $5,500 to a confidential

informant ("CI") who was cooperating with drug task force and Federal Bureau of

Investigation agents. The sale occurred in a pick-up truck driven by Mendoza-Mesa

(Pineda was the passenger). Officers stopped the truck and took Mendoza-Mesa,

Pineda, and the CI into custody. The police recovered 453 net grams of

methamphetamine from the CI, who told the police that he had received it from

Mendoza-Mesa. Pineda possessed the "buy money" at the time of the arrest. Officers

also found a loaded 9mm handgun–later determined to be stolen–under MendozaMesa's car seat. According to officers, during his intake process at the Omaha Police

Station, Mendoza-Mesa admitted owning the gun.

Mendoza-Mesa and Pineda were charged with distribution and possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine. Mendoza-Mesa also was charged with

possession of a stolen firearm and with possession of the firearm in relation to a drug

trafficking crime. Mendoza-Mesa pleaded guilty to the distribution and possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine charge. However, he proceeded to trial on

the two remaining gun counts. A jury acquitted Mendoza-Mesa of the two gun counts.

Following trial, the district court directed the United States Probation Office

to prepare a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Mendoza-Mesa objected to two

paragraphs calling for a sentence enhancement for the gun possession and rejecting

a reduction for serving a mitigating role in the crime. At the sentencing hearing, the

district court overruled Mendoza-Mesa's objections to the PSR. The district court then

found that Mendoza-Mesa possessed the firearm during the commission of a drug

trafficking offense, thus increasing his offense level by two levels. The district court

sentenced Mendoza-Mesa to eighty-seven months' imprisonment, a five-year term of

supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.2

 Mendoza-Mesa timely appealed

Appellate Case: 02-4039 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819965 
at 30, with a criminal history category of I (Mendoza-Mesa had no prior criminal

convictions). The sentencing range for this offense level fell between 97 to 121

months' imprisonment. Mendoza-Mesa's sentence was enhanced by two levels to 32,

which subjected him to a range between 121 to 151 months' imprisonment. The

district court reduced Mendoza-Mesa's offense level by three levels to 29 for

acceptance of responsibility, thus subjecting him to a range of 87 to 108 months'

imprisonment. He was sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment. Had the district court

not enhanced his sentence by two levels for possession of the gun, Mendoza-Mesa's

offense level would have been at level 27, subjecting him to a sentence between 70

and 87 months' imprisonment. Notably, Mendoza-Mesa's sentence of 87 months is

within the range for both the enhanced and unenhanced offense levels. In light of the

Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004), and the interpretation of that decision by a panel of our court in United

States v. Mooney, No. 02-3388, 2004 WL 1636960 (8th Cir. July 23, 2004), vacated

and reh'g en banc granted August 6, 2004, even if the district court plainly erred in

enhancing Mendoza-Mesa's sentence, Mendoza-Mesa suffered no prejudice–and is

due no relief–because his sentence of 87 months' imprisonment fell within the

unenhanced sentencing range.

-3-

the district court's enhancement of his sentence for possession of the gun in relation

to a drug crime.

II. Analysis

Mendoza-Mesa asserts that the district court erred in assessing a two-level

enhancement to his offense level because the government failed to establish that he

possessed the gun in connection with the drug crime. He argues that the evidence did

not support a finding that there was a substantial nexus between the firearm and the

criminal activity. The government responds that Mendoza-Mesa was in control of the

vehicle, the gun was found under his seat, and the drug transaction took place in the

car, thus establishing the requisite "temporal and spacial relationship" between the

gun, the drug activity, and Mendoza-Mesa. In addition, the government notes that the

district court credited the police officer's testimony that Mendoza-Mesa admitted at

the police station that the gun was his. As such, this credibility determination is

Appellate Case: 02-4039 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819965 
-4-

practically unreviewable, and is also relevant to support the enhancement. United

States v. Gary, 341 F.3d 829, 835–36 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Adipietro, 983

F.2d 1468, 1479 (8th Cir. 1993).

We review the district court's determination that Mendoza-Mesa possessed a

firearm within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b) for clear error. United States v.

Payne, 81 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir. 1996). Section 2D1.1(b)(1) mandates a two-level

enhancement if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant possessed a weapon during the commission of a drug offense. United

States v. Braggs, 317 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d

1203, 1213 (8th Cir. 2001). The government need only establish that "a temporal and

spacial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the

defendant." Atkins, 250 F.3d at 1214 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Constructive possession is sufficient to support a § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. Id. at

1213. Proof of ownership, use, or actual possession is not necessary. Id. at 1213–14.

"It is enough if the gun is 'found in the same location where drugs or drug

paraphernalia were stored, or where part of the conspiracy took place.'" Braggs, 317

F.3d at 904–05 (quoting United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 379, 384 (8th Cir. 1999)

(citation omitted)). We have affirmed the imposition of a two-level enhancement

under § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on evidence that the defendant was in the same vehicle

where police recovered a handgun belonging to a co-conspirator and

methamphetamine manufacturing formulas, among other factors. Atkins, 250 F.3d at

1214; United States v. Alatorre, 207 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(court found constructive possession where shotgun was found in bedroom adjacent

to a dresser containing drugs and a scale in a residence the defendant shared with

others); United States v. Moore, 184 F.3d 790, 794–95 (8th Cir. 1999) (court found

sufficient temporal and spatial relation between the defendant, the weapons, and the

drugs after police found firearms in defendant's bedroom, along with drugs in the

bedroom, the next room, and the basement).

Appellate Case: 02-4039 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819965 
-5-

In this case, the gun was found in the car Mendoza-Mesa was driving, the car

was used to commit the drug crime, and drugs were found in the car. In addition, the

district court credited the police officer's testimony that Mendoza-Mesa admitted that

he owned the gun. As such, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in

finding that a temporal and spatial relationship existed between Mendoza-Mesa, the

weapon, and the drugs sufficient to support the two-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b). We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-4039 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819965