[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13378

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-20173-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN GUILLERMO CUARTAS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 21, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 1 of 10
2

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Adrian Guillermo Cuartas appeals his 151-month sentence, imposed after he 

pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. Cuartas 

argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for 

possession of a dangerous weapon because he did not have a firearm with him 

during the drug transaction. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). After careful review, we 

affirm Cuartas’s sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) learned from a confidential 

source (“CS”) that Cuartas was a heroin and cocaine distributor operating in the 

Tampa, Florida area.

1 The CS contacted Cuartas to discuss buying and selling 

heroin and cocaine. Cuartas met with the CS in Miami, Florida to buy 10 

kilograms of cocaine, but the transaction fell through because Cuartas did not have 

the agreed-upon sum of money. Instead, the CS gave Cuartas about one gram of 

cocaine as a sample of what he could provide, and the next day Cuartas gave the 

CS a less-than four-gram sample of heroin.

1 The facts here come from the unobjected-to facts contained in the presentence 

investigation report.

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 2 of 10
3

Cuartas and the CS continued discussing selling cocaine and heroin to each 

other. A few weeks later, the two met to finalize the details of the exchange, and 

Cuartas told the CS that he had heroin in his hotel room. About two hours later, 

Cuartas met the CS in a parking lot and showed him multiple kilograms of heroin 

hidden in his car. The CS instructed Cuartas to follow him to a warehouse to 

complete the transaction. Upon arriving at the warehouse, Cuartas removed 3.5 

kilograms of heroin from his backpack. Law enforcement then appeared and 

arrested Cuartas.

After his arrest, Cuartas consented to a search of his hotel room, where 

officers found a stolen and loaded nine-millimeter handgun and about $4,000 in 

cash. No drugs were found in the hotel room. Cuartas also disclosed that he was 

advanced the heroin in San Antonio, Texas and was expected to deposit the 

payment later. Cuartas thought he could make more money selling cocaine, so he 

planned to exchange the heroin for cocaine, sell the cocaine at a higher price, pay

for the heroin, and pocket the difference. Cuartas also stated that he had been 

selling about one kilogram of heroin every month in the Tampa area over the past 

year.

Cuartas was charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute 

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 1 and 2), and possession of a 

firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 3 of 10
4

(Count 3). He pled guilty to Count 2, and the government dismissed the remaining 

counts.

Before sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation 

report (“PSR”). The PSR calculated Cuartas’s total offense level as 31, which 

included a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of 

a dangerous weapon. Based on his total offense level and criminal history 

category of IV, Cuartas’s recommended range under the Sentencing Guidelines 

was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment.

Cuartas objected to the PSR’s application of the two-level dangerous 

weapon enhancement, arguing that the firearm found in his hotel room was neither 

present at nor connected with the offense. Cuartas reiterated his objection at the 

sentencing hearing. The district court overruled the objection, noting that the 

enhancement applied “even if he had the gun to protect the money . . . [and] it’s 

reasonable to assume in this case that the money came from drug trafficking.” 

Doc. 35 at 4.2

 The district court adopted the PSR’s guidelines range and sentenced 

Cuartas to 151 months’ imprisonment, the low-end of his guidelines range.

This is Cuartas’s appeal.

2

 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 4 of 10
5

II. DISCUSSION

Cuartas argues that the district court erred in applying the dangerous weapon 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because the government presented no 

evidence that he possessed a firearm during the drug offense. Cuartas asserts there 

was no evidence that he carried a gun during any of his meetings with the CS, 

including the transaction for which he was convicted, or that the gun found in his 

hotel room was connected to the drug offense. We disagree.

In evaluating a district court’s imposition of an offense-level enhancement 

pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1), we review the court’s findings of fact for clear error and 

its application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Pham, 463 

F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006). Whether a firearm was possessed in connection 

with a crime is a factual finding we review for clear error. United States v.

Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 2006). A factual finding is clearly 

erroneous when, upon review of the evidence, we are left with “the definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Barrington, 

648 F.3d 1178, 1195 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Although clear error review is deferential, “a finding of fact must be supported by 

substantial evidence.” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 

2007).

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 5 of 10
6

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level enhancement in drug 

cases “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). The § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement applies “if the weapon was 

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

offense.” Id. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). To justify the enhancement, the government 

must either establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was 

present at the site of the charged conduct or prove that the defendant possessed a 

firearm during conduct relevant to the offense of conviction. Stallings, 463 F.3d at 

1220. Relevant conduct includes acts “that were part of the same course of 

conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” United States v. 

Smith, 127 F.3d 1388, 1390 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)). If 

the government meets its burden, then the burden shifts to the defendant to 

demonstrate “that a connection between the weapon and the offense was clearly 

improbable.” United States v. Audain, 254 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We have recognized that proximity between guns and drugs alone is 

sufficient for the government to meet its initial burden under § 2D1.1(b)(1). 

United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 91–92 (11th Cir. 2013). Relatedly,

the government is not required to prove that the firearm was used to facilitate the 

drug transaction, Audain, 254 F.3d at 1289–90, or was possessed during the drug 

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 6 of 10
7

transaction, United States v. Hunter, 172 F.3d 1307, 1308–10 (11th Cir. 1999), for 

the enhancement to apply. In United States v. Hunter, for example, we affirmed 

the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement where the firearm at issue was 

not seized during the defendant’s arrest or the seizure of drugs. See id. (affirming 

imposition of dangerous weapon enhancement where a gun was found in 

defendant’s home two days after his arrest, based on evidence that drug 

paraphernalia was also found in defendant’s home). Of course, the presence of a

firearm cannot be merely coincidental, see Stallings, 463 F.3d at 1220, but 

evidence that a defendant used or could have used a firearm to protect his criminal 

activity is sufficient, see Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 91–92.

We discern no clear error in the district court’s application of the 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. Cuartas argues that the enhancement does not apply 

because there was no evidence that he carried the firearm during his dealings with 

the CS. However, the gun was found in Cuartas’s hotel room—the same room 

where, just two hours before the charged drug transaction, Cuartas stored the 3.5 

kilograms of heroin he planned to sell to the CS. Although it is true that the 

district court did not rely on this fact, we can affirm the district court on any 

ground supported by the record—even if that ground was not considered or 

advanced in the district court. See United States v. Gill, 864 F.3d 1279, 1280 (11th 

Cir. 2017). This evidence demonstrates sufficient proximity between the firearm 

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 7 of 10
8

and the charged conduct to meet the government’s initial burden under 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). See Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 91–92; Hunter, 172 F.3d at 1308–10 

(11th Cir. 1999).

Cuartas cites Stallings to argue that the government failed to meet its burden

under § 2D1.1(b)(1), but his reliance is misplaced. In Stallings, we held that the 

government failed to meet its burden that the dangerous weapon enhancement 

applied where the only evidence presented was that three handguns were found in 

the defendant’s residence, where no activities related to the underlying offense had 

occurred. Stallings, 463 F.3d at 1220–21. Here, there is more evidence than mere 

possession of a firearm at the defendant’s residence, unconnected with any other 

evidence of drug trafficking. Cuartas admitted that he kept the heroin in his hotel 

room where the gun was ultimately found. Thus, the government met its initial 

burden under § 2D.1.1(b)(1), and the burden shifted to Cuartas to prove that it was 

“clearly improbable” that the firearm was connected to the offense. Audain, 254 

F.3d at 1289.

Cuartas argues that the connection between the weapon and the offense was 

clearly improbable because he did not carry the gun with him to the warehouse. 

Had the gun been connected with the offense, Cuartas reasons, he “surely would 

have had it with him” during the drug transaction. Appellant’s Br. at 19. Cuartas 

further contends that the presence of cash in his hotel room where the gun was 

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 8 of 10
9

recovered did not support a connection between the gun and the offense because 

the transaction at issue was a “heroin-for-cocaine transaction, not a cash-for-drugs

transaction.” Id. at 17–18 (emphasis omitted). We reject Cuartas’s arguments.

First, that Cuartas did not carry the firearm during the drug transaction does 

not mean it was clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the offense. See 

United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838 (11th Cir. 1998). In United States v. 

Trujillo, we upheld the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement where the 

defendant argued, as Cuartas does here, that the connection between his gun and a 

drug transaction was clearly improbable because he left the gun in a separate office 

from where the drug transaction occurred. Id. at 847. And, as noted above, we 

have affirmed the imposition of the enhancement even where the firearm was not 

possessed during the drug transaction. See Hunter, 172 F.3d at 1308–10.

Second, the district court’s conclusion that it was reasonable to assume the 

money found in Cuartas’s hotel room was connected to drug trafficking was not 

clearly erroneous. See United States v. Ladson, 643 F.3d 1335, 1341 (11th Cir. 

2011) (“Under clear error review, the district court’s determination must be 

affirmed so long as it is plausible in light of the record” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Cuartas possessed a significant quantity of heroin and admitted that he 

had been selling one kilogram of heroin every month for the last year. Given this 

evidence, it was plausible for the district court to conclude it was not clearly 

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 9 of 10
10

improbable that the gun was related to the drug offense given the presence of 

$4,000 in cash where the gun was found. See id.

Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the two-level 

dangerous weapon enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-13378 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 10 of 10