FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 85 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 04 13 -RAL-AEP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ver su s ROGELIO ZARCO PEREZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, MAR TIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro ge li o P erez ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si ng a fi rearm in furth eran ce of a drug tra ffi ck in g o ffen se , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c). Perez arg ue s t he di st ric t co urt 1
erre d i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th e so le ba si s the
ev id en ce u se d t o c on vi cthi m was i ns uf

fic ie nt . Spe ci fic al ly, Pere z co nt en ds th e

2 Gov ern m en t d idno t es tabl is h b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t h is po ss es si onof a9mm Sm ith & W es so n h an dg un was “ in furth eran ce” o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se be cau se “ he di d n othe lp , pro m ot e, oradva nc e th e cri m e in an y way .” Afte r
rev ie w, we affi rm

Pere z’s co nv ic ti on . 3 To p ro ve a vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c), t he Gov ern m en t m us t s ho w th e de fen da nt“ (1 ) kn owi ng ly (2) p os se ss eda fi rearm (3) in furth eran ce o f an y dru g tra ffi ck in g c rime for wh ic h h e co ul d b e p ro se cu te d i n aco urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Woo da rd , 53 1 F .3d13 52 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To b e “ in Perez pleade d guilty

to conspirac y

to possess with the intent to dis tribute five or more 1 kilogr ams of a mixture or substance containinga dete ctable a mount of coca ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1) (A)( ii), and possession with the intent to distribut e five or more kilogr ams of a mixture or substance containinga dete ctable a mount of coca ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A)(ii). We need not addr ess Pere z’s judgment of a cquittal argument based on our findingthe 2 evidenc e pre sented at trial was suff icient. We reviewchalleng es to the suffic iency of the e vidence de novo. United States v. 3 W illiams , 527 F.3d 1235, 1244 ( 11th Cir. 2008). We view “the e vidence in the light most favor able to the g overnme nt,” re solving “ any conflicts in fa

vor of the g overnme nt and acc ept[ing] all reasona

ble infer ence s that tend to support the g overnme nt’s case .” Id. We will aff irm “a c onviction if a re asonable trier of fac t could find that the evide nce e stablished guilt beyond a re asonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). 2fu rth eran ce” o f th e dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se , th e fi rearm

m us t h av e “ he lp ed , fu rth ered , pro m ot ed , or a dv an cedth e dru g t raff ic ki ng .” Id

. (qu ot at io n o m it te d)
. W e co ns id er s ev eral fact or s t o d et erm in e whe th er a fi rearm was p os se ss edin fu rth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se , in cl ud in g: The type o f drug act iv it y

th atis be in g c on du ct ed , acce ss ib il it y of t he fir earm , th e type o f th e weap on , whet he r th e weap onis st ol en , th e st atus of t he po ss es si on (le gi ti m at e o r il le ga l), wh ethe r th e g un is lo ad ed , pro xi m it y

to th e dru gs or dru g p ro fit s, an d t he ti m e an d ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch th e g un is fou nd
. W oo da rd , 53 1 F .3dat 1 36 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
. The re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w Perez po ss es se d afir earm in fu rth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se . Perez po ss es se d alo ad ed9mm Sm it h & W es so n h an dg un , whi ch was re ad il y acce ss ib le on hi s b edro om ni gh t s ta nd
. Fu rth er, a dru g l ed ge r an d b etween $2 0,0 00 an d $ 40 ,00 0 i n d ru g p ro ceed s wer e fo un d i n P erez ’s bed ro om clo se t. Las tl y , ina ba rnlo cat ed25 -5 0 yards fro m th e ho us e were 5 2 k il og ram s o f co cai ne an d $ 11 9,9 40 in dru g p ro ceed s. Be cau se Pere z’s ro le in th e dru g t raff ic ki ng org an iz at io n was to pro te ctth e dru gs an d d ru g pr of it s, a re as on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e d et erm in edth is ev id en ce s ho wedhe po ss es se d t he fir earm

in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se . Se e W

il li ams , 52 7 F .3dat 1 24 4. AFFIRMED.
3