United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1542

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Patricio Renteria-Saldana,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: November 21, 2013

 Filed: June 23, 2014

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Patricio Renteria-Saldana pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court sentenced him to 210 months’ 1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the District of Nebraska.
imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Renteria-Saldana

appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error in calculating the

advisory sentencing guideline range. We affirm.

I.

After Renteria-Saldana pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, the district

court was presented with a presentence investigation report that included some

statements of fact to which Renteria-Saldana made no objection. The government

also presented police reports concerning an investigation of Renteria-Saldana and

others who were involved in the charged conspiracy. These sources are the basis for

the factual information that underlies the disputed guidelines calculations.

Renteria-Saldana was arrested after a traffic stop in March 2012. During a

search of Renteria-Saldana and his car, officers found methamphetamine, cash, and

drug records. Renteria-Saldana admitted that he distributed methamphetamine for

others who used a house at 1515 Dorcas Street in Omaha as a “stash house” where

he picked up the drugs. Renteria-Saldana had a key to the stash house and granted

officers permission to search the house.

During the search of the house on Dorcas Street, officers found 121 grams of

methamphetamine in a clear plastic container under the floor beneath the sink cabinet

in the kitchen. Under the sink, they also located a drug scale and a loaded ninemillimeter firearm. The search team discovered additional methamphetamine in a

trash-bag box in the kitchen area and on a closet shelf in a bedroom. According to

police reports, officers found an inflatable bed, but no clothes or furniture in the

house. Officers also searched Renteria-Saldana’s residence, where they seized drug

records and $34,000 in cash. 

-2-
Officers interviewed Renteria-Saldana after his arrest in March 2012 and

provided the following written report, which was admitted into evidence at

sentencing. Renteria-Saldana first claimed that a person named “Antonio” told him

to pay the utility bills for the stash house, but later admitted that was not true. 

Instead, Renteria-Saldana acknowledged that he worked directly with two cousins

who left for Mexico in early March and left Renteria-Saldana in charge of the stash

house. Renteria-Saldana said that every two or three days someone named Francisco

called and told himthat drugs had been dropped off at the stash house, typically under

the sink in a plastic storage bin. Francisco also called to alert Renteria-Saldana when

someone was coming to the stash house to pick up money from Renteria-Saldana’s

drug sales.

The district court addressed two disputed issues under the sentencing

guidelines. First, the district court found that Renteria-Saldana possessed a firearm

and thus added two offense levels pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The court found

that Renteria-Saldana was in constructive possession of the loaded firearm that

officers found under the kitchen sink in the stash house:

He was using the stash house. He had the keys to it. As noted, he was

paying the utilities for it. And whether or not he was under the direction

of somebody up the chain of command in Mexico, the weapon was

there, right with the scales and the drugs. And it was not clearly

improbable that it was there to be used in connection with the drug

dealing. So again, I find he was in possession of the weapon. 

Second, the court found that Renteria-Saldana maintained the Dorcas Street

house for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance, and thus added two

offense levels pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12):

I find that he was operating his drug-dealing business from that stash

house and he was maintaining that stash house. And he had the keys to

-3-
it and he paid the utilities for it. So whether or not he was getting

directions from somebody else in Mexico, I find that that enhancement

is proper. 

The district court then sentenced Renteria-Saldana at the low end of the

advisory-guidelines range to a term of 210 months in prison, to be followed by five

years of supervised release. Renteria-Saldana appeals the sentence. We review the

district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the guidelines de

novo. United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010).

II.

The sentencing guidelines provide for a two-level increase in offense level in

a drug-trafficking case “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was

possessed.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The enhancement “should be applied if the

weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected

with the offense.” Id., comment. (n.11(A)). Thus, the government must show that

“(1) the gun was possessed and (2) it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was

connected to the drug offense.” Anderson, 618 F.3d at 880. Actual or constructive

possession is sufficient to satisfy the guideline. Id.

The district court found that Renteria-Saldana constructively possessed the

firearm that was found under the sink at the Dorcas Street house. Constructive

possession implies knowing possession, see United States v. McCracken, 110 F.3d

535, 541 (8th Cir. 1997), so assuming that knowledge was required, cf. United States

v. Fiala, 929 F.2d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 1991), the finding of knowledge was not clearly

erroneous. As one who possessed a key to the house and paid the utility bills,

Renteria-Saldana had dominion over the area where the gun was found. He

acknowledged that he regularly accessed the area beneath the sink to retrieve drugs. 

Firearms are tools of the drug trade, and it was reasonable to infer that Renteria-

-4-
Saldana knew about the loaded gun that was found in the same area as the drugs. See

United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2008).

The evidence also supports the district court’s finding that it was not clearly

improbable that the weapon was connected with Renteria-Saldana’s drug trafficking

offense. The gun was not an unloaded hunting rifle in a closet, see USSG § 2D1.1,

comment. (n.11(A)); it was a loaded handgun located in a stash house with the drugs

that were delivered to Renteria-Saldana for resale. Whether or not Renteria-Saldana

personally used the firearm, it was enough for the government to show that he

knowingly possessed it and that it was connected to the drug trafficking offense. 

United States v. Garcia, 703 F.3d 471, 476 (8th Cir. 2013). The district court

properly applied USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).

The guidelines also provide that a defendant’s offense level must be increased

by two levels if he knowingly “maintained a premises for the purpose of

manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12). In

determining whether a defendant “maintained” a premises, the court should consider

whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the premises and the extent to

which the defendant controlled accessto, or activities at, the premises. Id., comment.

(n.17). 

Although Renteria-Saldana did not own or reside at the Dorcas Street stash

house, he exercised control over it and operated his drug-dealing business from the

premises. A police report submitted at sentencing indicated that, according to

Renteria-Saldana, two of his co-conspirators had recently left for Mexico and left him

in charge. Renteria-Saldana had a key to the house and paid the utility bills. He

regularly picked up drugs from the house and brought drug-sale proceeds to the

premisesfor retrieval by other conspirators. There was no furniture or clothing in the

house to suggest that it was used for anything other than drug trafficking. The record

thussupportsthe finding that Renteria-Saldana maintained the house for the purpose

-5-
of distributing drugs. The court properly applied the two-level specific offense

characteristic.

* * *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-6-