1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0203n.06 No. 09-1455 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. F RANCISCO CRU Z C ABALLERO Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UN ITED STA TES DI STR IC T CO UR T F OR THE EASTE RN DISTRICT OF M ICHIGAN

Be for e : M ER RI TT, G IBBO NS, and C OOK , C ir c uit Judg e s. J U LI A SM I THG I BB ON S, Circuit Judge. De fe n d an t -ap p el l an tFr an ci s co C ru z C ab al l ero
a pp e a ls the 13 6- mon th s e nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t co ur

t a ft e r h e ple d guil ty

to c on sp ir a c y

to po sse ss h e ro in w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te in v iol ati on of 21 U .S. C. § 84 6; p os se ssi on of he ro in w ith intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1); and being an illeg al alien in possession of
a fi re arm in v iol atio n o f 18 U.S.C . § 92 2( g )( 5) (A ). He argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to ru le upon his request for

a minor rol e ad

j ustment pursuant to the United States SentencingGuidelines (“U .S.S.G.” or “Guide lines”) § 3B 1.2, in contrave ntion of Rule 32 of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal Procedur e. He also argues that the district court c ommitt ed plain er ror by imposing a two- level enhanc ement to his offe nse level pursua nt to U.S.S .G. § 2D1.1(b) (1) f or the possession of a

firea rmNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

2 in connec tion with a drug -traf ficking offe nse. Fo r t h e re as ons that follow, we a ffirm the district court’s se ntencingdecision. I. On J une 16, 2008, the Oakland Macomb Count y I nterdiction Team (“O MI T”) w as notified by a conf idential informant that three i n d i v iduals—who wer e later identified as F ranc isco Cruz Ca ba lle ro , Jes us Sand ov a l, a nd Jesu s I va n L op e z Ra mos —w e re sta y ing a t the Sup e r E ig ht M ote l in Ste rl ingHe ig hts , M ic hig an, and we re po ssi bly

tr a ff ic kin g na rc oti c s f ro m th is loc a tio n. Sand ov a l, Ca ba lle ro , a nd Ramos , w ho we re a ll a lie ns re sid ing i ll egall y in t he Un ite d St a te s, ha d tr a ve le d to Michig an from Atlanta, Georg ia. At approx imately 8 a.m. the same day , OMI T beg an surve illance of the ho te l are a

and ide nti fi e d tw o v e hic le s— a bla c k N iss an A lti ma

and a tan H on da

Ac c or d—

wi th Geor g ia license plates. A K- 9 unit was summoned to the s cene , perf ormed a n exterior sear ch of the vehicle, a nd aler ted positively

to the prese nce of

narc otics on both vehicles. At approximately 1:30 p.m., OMI T office rs obs erve d three men ex it the motel and ente r the Honda. Af

ter c ircling the motel, the Honda pulled al o n gs i d e the Nissan, and Ramos exit ed the vehicle, r etrieve d an unidentified obje ct from the N issan, and re turned to the Honda. OMI T offic ers
c on tin ue d mo bil e surv e ill anc e as th e Hon da d e pa rt e d th e are a

and , a ft e r o bs e rv ingse ve ra l tr a ff ic violations, conducted a

traff ic stop, in which the driver, Sandoval, was place d under arr est for f ailing to produce a drive r’s lice nse. The officer s asked Caballero and Ramos to exit the vehicle, and the K- 9 unit pe rf or me d a se c on d e xter ior

se arc h, a g a in a le rt ingpo sit ive ly to t he pr e se nc e of

na rc oti c s. The off icer s then sear ched the vehicle, f inding a n open duff

el bag b eh i n d t h e drive r’s seat that
c o n ta in e d tw o h an d gu n s
— a Sm it h & We s s o n . 3 5 7 an d a T a u r u s 9 mm
— an d v ar io us pictures ofNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

3 Jesu s Ma lve rd e , th e “ patr on sa int” of dr ugtr a ff ic ke rs . Ca

ba lle ro and

Ramos we re su

bs e qu e ntl y
arr e s te d f o r th e p o s s e s s io no f

w e a p o n s w it h o u t a c o n c e a le d

w e a p o n s p e r mi t. T h e thr e e men collectively

possessed $777.00. Upon obt aining a search warr ant, officers searc hed the room in which C aballer o, Ramos and Sandoval wer e staying a nd retrie ved 1,007.3 g rams (a ppro x i m at ely

1 kilogr am) of he roin and $24,700 in United States curr ency . When questioned separ at el y t h e next day , Caballero told the office rs that he wa s in Detroit to purcha se a c ar, Ramos stated that they found the he roin and money in a bush outside the motel, and Sandoval maintaine d that they found the he roin at the motel. After Cab al l er o pled not g uilty to an initial indictment on J uly 8, the g overnme nt filed a Sup e rs e din g I nd ic tme nt on Oc tob e r 15, c ha rg ing him wi th the fo llo wi ng of fe ns e s: ( 1) c on sp ir a c y

to possess heroin with intent to distribute, (2) possession of heroin with intent to dis tribute, (3) c arr y ing
a fi re arm duri ngand

in r e la tio n to a

dr ugtr a ffi cki ng c ri me , a

nd (4 ) b e ingan il le g a l a lie n in possession of a fir ear

m. Caballero a g ain pled not g uilty to all counts on October

17. De s p i t e h i s initi al pleas, Caba llero ente red a g uilty plea to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the Sup e rs e din g I nd ic tme nt o n De c e mbe r 1, at wh ic h p oin t th e g ov e rnme nt m ov e d to dis mis s Co un t 3 in the interests of

justice. The judge apprised Caballero that Counts 1 and 2 eac h car ried a minimum sentenc e of 120 months’ imprisonment and a maxi mum sentence of life i m p ri sonment and that C o u n t4 ca rr i eda m ax i m u m s en t e n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n t h s ’ i mp ri s o n m en t
. Fo l l o wi n g t h e p l eah ea ri n g, the probation office pr epar ed a Pre sentenc e Investig ation Rep o r t ( “PSR”) rec ommending a g uideline imprisonment rang e of 121–151 months base d u p o n C ab al lero’s of fense level of 32 a

nd criminal his tor y . In p art ic ula

r, the PSR n ote d th a t Ca

ba lle ro ha d n ot f

ile d a ny ob je c tio ns to t

he PSR w ith inNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

L ocal Rule 32.1(b) provides that, within 14 day s of disclosure of the PSR , counsel for

the def endant 1 “shall communicate to the probation officer
. . . an y objections to any materia l information, sentenc ing classifications, sente ncing g uideline rang es, and policy statements which a

re c ontained in, or omitted from, the re port. Such communication shall be in w riting and shall be sig ned by the de fe nd ant o r c ouns e l fo r the de fe nd ant. ” E. D. Mic h. L R 32 .1 (b ). Th e re qu ir e me nts of L oc a l Ru le 32.1(b) a re ide ntical to Fe dera l Rule 32(f) (1), which provides that the par ties, within 14 day s after recei v i n g t h e PSR, “must s tate in writing any objections, including objections to material i n formation, sente ncing g uideline ra ng es, and policy

statements containe d in or omitted from the repor t.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(f) (1). 4 the time limit ati o n s of L ocal Rule 32.1. Neve rtheless, Caba llero filed a n untimely

sentenc ing 1 memorandum on Mar ch 12, 2009, re questing t h e m i nimum 120-month sentence a nd seekingthe
re d ac t i o no f c er t ai np ar agr ap h s i n t h e P S R t h at d es cr i b edp ri o r A ri z o n a c h ar ges o f k i dn ap p i n g,
a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , and arm e d ro bb e ry that ha d be e n dis mis se d, a s he fe are d s uc h r e fe re nc e wo uld adver sely aff ect his sec urity

classification within t he B urea u of Prisons. At the sentenc ing hear ing befor e United States District J udg e L awr ence P. Zatkoff on Mar ch 31, defe nse counse l unsucce ssfully reiter ated the obje ction to the inclusion of the Arizona cha rg es and stated that Ca

ballero had no additional objections to the PSRand no fur ther re quests to modify its content. J udg e Z atkoff the n permitted counse l to speak on beha lf of Caba llero i n mitigation and “[a]s di stinguished f

rom the [PS R] .” De fense couns el ag ain re quested that the c ourt impose the minimum 120-month sentence , particula rly in light of the fact that co-de fenda nt Sandoval had been sentenc ed to the minimum
. After defe nse counse l’s statement, Judge Z atkoff a ffor ded Caba llero an op po rt un ity to s pe a k o n h is o wn

be ha lf , at w hic h p oin t Ca

ba lle ro e xpre sse d r e g re t f or his c ri me s,
re qu es t eda s ec o n d

ch an ce , an d

s t at edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: I a m il le g a l an d th e G o v e r n me n t is g o in g to p ay a lo t o f money for people like me. That’s why I dare to say I don’t want to offe nd y ou,No. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

5 y our H on or , b ut I

wa nt y ou to ple a se c on sid e r g ivi ngme the le a st p ar t i ci p an t , t h e l o w p ar t i ci p at i o no r s o m et h i n g. Be fore i m p o s i n g the sentenc e, Judge Z atkoff stated that he ha d revie wed the PSR, found the Guidelines re commendation to be pr operly computed at a rang e of 121–151 months, and determined that Ca ba lle ro wa s n ot s imi larl y sit uate d to Sand ov a l, a s Ca bal ler o fa c e d a n a dd iti on a l f

ir e a rm s char g e. He then sentenc ed C aballer o to 136 months’ imprisonm ent for Counts 1 and 2 a nd to 120 months’ imprisonment for Count 4, with the sentenc es to r un concur rently and to be f

ollowed by

five y e ars of su pe rv ise d r e le a se . Ca

ba lle ro a pp e a ls. II. Ca ba lle ro arg

ue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

vio la te d Ru le 32 by

fa ili ngto r

ule up on his re qu e st fo r a mino r ro le a dju stm e nt pur su ant to U.S .S. G. § 3B 1. 2. He pr e mis e s this c la im u po n h is r e qu e st for “ low participation” at the sente ncing hear ing, w hich he c ontends was c lear l y a re q uest for a minor role adjustment. Pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, the sentenc ing c ourt “must—for a

ny disputed portion of the prese ntence repor t or other controve rted matter—rule on the d i s p u t e o r de t er m i n e th at a ru l i n g i s u n n ec es s ary ei t h er b ec au s e t h e m at t er

wi l l n o taf

fe ct s en t en ci n g,
o r b e c a u s e t h e c o u rtw i l l n o tc o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r

i n s e n t e n c i n g . ” F e d
. R
. C r i m . P
. 3 2 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B )
. In particula r, Rule 32 “pr ohibits a court fac ed with a dispute over sentenc ing f

actor s from adopting the fac tual finding s of the [PS R] without making fac tual deter minations of i ts own.” United States v. Lang , 3 33 F .3 d 6 78 , 6 81 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) (i nte rn a l quot a tio ns omi tte d)
. B ut, the re is “ ‘n o r e a so n to require a dis t ri ct cour

t to make independe nt findings outside the PSR when the fa cts are undisputed.’” Id. (q u o t i n g United States v. Treadway , 328 F.3d 878, 886 ( 6th Cir. 2003)).No. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

6 Under Rule 32(f), in or der to dispute a f inding in the P SR, a party must file written objec tions within 14 day s of re ceivingit, “including objections to material infor mation, sentencingg uideline rang es, and policy

statements containe d in or omitted from the repor t.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(f) (1); see also E.D.Mich. L R 32.1( b) (re quiring parties to f ile objections to the PSR within 14 day s after
rec eiving it). I f, however, a party fails to make objec tions withi n this 14-day window, the cour

t at sentenc ing “ may , for good cause, allow a par ty to make a ne w objection at a ny time before sentenc e is i mpo se d. ” F e d. R. C ri m. P . 3 2( i) (1 )( D) ; see also E. D. Mic h. L R 32 .1 (e) (per mi ttingthe c ourt , “upo n a s h o w in g o f g o o d c a u s e , ” to a ll o w n e w o b

je c ti o n s “ to b e r a is e d a t an y ti me p r io r to the imposit ion of sentenc e”)
. I n this case, de fense counsel did not object to the PSR b as ed u p o n C aballer o’s alleg ed entitlement to a m inor role adjustment. I t is undisputed that defe nse counsel did not file any written ob je c tio ns to t

he PSR w ith in 1 4 d ay s a ft e r re c e ivi ng it on the g ro un ds of

a min or ro le a dju stm e nt, as is re qu ir e d u n d e r L o c a l Ru le 3 2
. 1 ( b )
. M o r e o v e r , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ma d e n o u n ti me ly w r itte nor oral objec tion on this basis. At sentenc ing, when J udg e Zatkoff asked whether Caballero ha d any ob je c tio ns , c or

re c tio ns , or de le tio ns to the PSR, de fe ns e c ouns e l a ff ir me d that he had th oro ug hly
re vie we d th e PSR w ithCa ba lle ro , w ho wi sh e d o nly

to dis pu te the inc lus ion

of the Ar izon a

c ha rg e s. Although L ocal Rul e 32.1(e ) per mits t he district cour

t to allow belated objec tions upon a showing of g oo d c a us e , d e fe ns e c ouns e l ne ve r r a ise d th e iss ue of a min or ro le a dju stm e nt. Ne ve rt he le ss, Ca

ba lle ro c on te nd s tha t his c a su a l r e fe re nc e to “ low pa rt ic ipatio n” duri nghis allocution must be construed as a formal objection t o the P SR. We disag ree . Caballero ne ither cited the minor role guideline under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 nor deve loped any meaning ful argument reg ardingNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

7 thi s a dju stm e nt. S

e e U n it e d S ta te s v . M a r ti n e z - V argas , 3 2 1 F.3d 245, 248 n.4 ( 1st Cir. 2003) (finding n o t i m el y

objection to the PSRbased on a minor role cla im when the def endant “ never ref err ed to t h e ro le-in-the- offe nse g uideline” or “deve lop[ ed] his ‘helper’ argument in any meaning ful way”). The ref ore, his re fe re nce to “ low participation” cannot be proper ly understood
as a belated objection to the PSR on t he basis of a minor role adjustment, and the district court’s obligations under Rule 32(i)(3) (B ) we re ne ver trig g ere d. Given his failure to raise the minor r ole adjustment objection in the district court, Caballer o is entitled only

to plain error

revie w in this court. See United States v. Ellerbee , 73 F.3d 105, 108 (6th Cir. 1996) (re viewing appellant’ s claim only for p l ai n er ro r whe n he fa iled to argue it in the district court). To pr evail, he must show that an e rror occur red in the district co u rt , t h e er ro r wa s pla in, it a ff

e c te d his su

bs tanti a l ri g hts , and “ thi s a dv e rs e imp a c t se ri ou sly a ff e c te d the fairn e ss, integ rity or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s.” Un ite d Stat es v. B lac k we ll , 459 F.3d 739, 77 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) (i nte rn a l qu ota tio ns omi tte d)
. “ Th e pla in er ro r d oc tr ine mand a te s r e ve rs a l on ly in exceptional circumstanc es and only wher e the err or i s so plain that the trial judg e and pr osecutor
wer e der elict in countena ncing it.” Un ite d S

tat es v . Ca rro ll , 26 F.3d 1380, 1383 ( 6t h Cir. 1994) (interna l quotations omi tted). A. C ab al l er o contends that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3 B 1
. 2 ( b ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a ta d e f e n d an tw h o “ w a s a

m i n o r p art i c i p an ti nan y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y” is entitled to a mitigating role adjustment, resulting in a two-leve l decr ease to his offense le vel under the Guidelines. As de fined by § 3B1.2, a

minor participant is a de fenda nt “who is le ss culpable thanNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

8 mos t ot he r p art ic ipa

nts , b ut w ho se rol e cou ld no t be de sc ri be d a s mi nim a l.” U. S.S. G. Manu a l § 3B 1. 2 c mt. n. 5. Th e a

pp lic a tio n note s emp ha size that the min or ro le a dju stm e nt i s a

“ he a vil y ” fa c tbased de termination and that the district c ourt, “in weig hing the totality of the c ircumstance s, is not
re qu ir e d to fi nd , b a se d s ole ly on th e defe nd ant’ s b are a sse rt ion , th a t su c h a ro le a dju stm e nt i s
war rante d.” Id. § 3 B 1. 2 c mt. n. 3( C) . Ind e e d, the “ det erm in ati on of a de fe nd ant’ s c ulp a

bil ity is heavily depende nt upon the fac ts, and the de fenda nt has the burde n of provingmitigating fac tors by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e.” United States v. Bartholomew , 310 F.3d 912, 924 (6th Cir. 2002) (interna l quotations and citation omitt ed). This court has pr eviously interpre ted the applica

bility of a minor role adjustment in similar fac tual scena

rios. I n Bartholomew , defe ndant Har ris and two co-de fenda

nts w ere convicted by a jury for c onspiracy

to distribute marijuana. Id. at 916. Additionally , Har ris was c onvicted of posse ssion with intent to dis tribute marijuana
. Id. Al tho ug h H arr is c on te nd e d th a t th e dis tr ic t court e rr e d in ref us in g h is r e qu e s t f

o r a mi n o r o r mi n im a l r o le r e d

u c ti o np u r s u an t t o § 3 B 1
. 2 , w e a f f ir me d the district court, noting that Har ris was not enti t l ed to a minor or minimal role r eduction bec ause he “wa s a fully

integ rate d member of a substantial dr ug conspirac y that used his residenc e as a base of operations” and had “par

ticipated in se vera l dr

ug transac tions .
. . stored a shotgun and ammunition in the closet nea

r the stairs to his baseme nt, and per sonally rec eived at least one lar g e shipment of
ma rijuana.” Id. a t 92 4– 25 ; se e als o United States v. Kollar , 336 F. App’ x 497, 502 (6th Cir.) (finding that defe ndant was not e ntitled to a minor r ole re duction with respec t to his conviction for
c on sp ir a c y

to pos se ss wit

h inte nt to dist

ri bu te c oc a ine sin c e , “e ve n th ou g h [he ] may [have be e n] le ss culpable tha

n [ h i s co -d efe ndant], his role was indispensable be cause he aide d in the cutting a ndNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

9 repa ckag ing of the c ocaine as we ll as arr ang ing a nd car rying out dr

ug deals” ), cert. de nied , 1 30 S. Ct. 643 (2009); Ellerbee , 73 F.3 d at 108 ( fi nd ingthat de fe nd ant w a s n ot e nti tle d to a min or ro le reduc tion in a mail fraud c ase w hen he “ was the ma jor, if not sole, participa

nt in the fra

ud scheme ”). L ike the def

endants in Bartholomew , Kollar , and Ellerbee , Caballero w as not e ntitled to a min or ro le a dju stm e nt fo r his pa rt ic ipatio n in the he ro in c on sp ir a c y and tr a ff ic kin g c ri me s b e c a

us e his ro le wa s no t min or wi thi n the me anin g of § 3B 1. 2. On De c e mbe r 1, 20 08 , Ca ba lle ro ple d g uil ty to t hr e e c ha rg e s: c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te he ro in; po ss ess io n with int e nt t o d i s t r i b u t e h e r o i n ; a

n d b e i n g an i l l e g a l a l i e n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e ar m . D u r i n g t h e p l e a c o l l o qu y, Ca ba lle ro a dmi tte d th a t he and his c o- de fe nd ants ha d tr a ve le d f ro m A tla nta to D e tr oit

wi th h e ro in
an d s e v e r a l h an d g u n s f

o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d i s t r i b u t i n g h e r o i n t o a t h i r d p art y . C o n s i s t e n t w ith thi s testimony , OMI T offic ers obse rved Caba llero and his co-de fenda nts depart the Super

Eig ht Motel toge ther, a

nd Caballero w as pre sent in the Honda w hen it was stopped. De spite his request for “low participation,” Caballero ha s not provided any evidenc e sugg esting that he play ed a minor r ole in the of fe ns e s o r w a s le ss c ulp a

ble tha n his c o- de fe nd ants . T he re fo re , h e wa s n ot e nti tle d to a min or ro le adjustment under § 3B 1.2. B. Caballero a lso contends that the district cour t plai n l y err ed in applying a two-leve l
e nh anc e me nt t o h is s e nte nc e un de r U .S. S.G . § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) f or the po sses sio n o f f

ir e arm s in
connec tion with a drug traff icking offe nse, as there was no evidenc e establishing a nex us betwee nNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

Caballero acknow ledg es that he did not dispute the sente ncing enhanc ement under § 2D1.1(b)( 1) 2 in t he dis tr ic t c ourt

and thu s is lim ite d to pla in e rr or re vie w i n th is c ourt
. 10 the her oin and handguns. I n resp o n s e, the gove rnment maintains that the fire arms nee d not be 2 seized from the same location as the narc otics to a pply a firea

rms enhanc ement under § 2D1.1(b)( 1). We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposi ng the two-leve l sentencing enhanc ement, as Caba llero has f ailed to show that it is c lear ly improbable that the handguns were
c on ne c te d to the he ro in c on sp ir a c y and tr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e s. Section 2D1.1(b)( 1) provides a two-leve l increa se in a de fenda nt’s offe nse leve l if a fire arm is “possessed” during a drug -traf ficking crime. This e nhance ment “is proper only if the g overnme nt establishes, by

a pre ponderan ce o f t he evide nce, tha t (1) the de fenda

nt possessed a da

ng erous
wea pon (2) during the commission of a drug -traf ficking offe nse.” United States v. Mose s , 289 F.3d 847, 850 (6th Cir. 2002). I f t he gover nment proves both elements, “the wea pon is presumed to have been connec ted to the defe ndant’s offe nse.” Id. “The defe ndant ca n rebut this presumption only by showing that it is ‘c lear ly

improbable that the w eapon w as conne cted to the of fense .’” Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. M an u a l § 2 D 1
. 1 c mt
. n . 3 )
. H e r e , th e g o v e r n me n t m e t i ts b u r d e no f

s h o w in g p o s s e s s ion beca use Caballer o pled g uilty to the firea

rm s p o ssession char g e and a dmitted at the plea c olloquy that he and his c o-def

endants possesse d a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and a .357 Magnum re volver while t rave ling from Atlanta, Georg ia, t o Detroit, Mi chig an, for the purpose of distributing her oin. Ca ba lle ro c on te nd s, ho we ve r, that he sat isf ie d h is b ur de n o f s ho wi ngc le ar i mpr ob a bil ity be c a us e no nexus between the f

irea rms and nar cotics wa s established.No. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

11 As to nexus, t his court “c ons i d er s v ar i ous fac tors in review ing the question of whethe r a fi re arm wa s r e la te d to a

pa rt ic ula r dr ug of fe ns e , inc lud ing the pr oximi ty of the fi re arm

to t he dr ug s, the ty pe of f irea rm involved, whethe r the fir ear m was loade d, and a n y

alternative purpose of

fer ed to expl ain the pre sence of the fir ear m.” Id. Ca

ba lle ro ’s arg um ent hi ng e s p ri nc ipa lly on the fi rs t fa c t o r , n a m e l y

t h e p r o xi m i t y

b e t w e e nt h e f

i r e ar m s an d dr u g s . H e c o n t e n d s t h a ti ti s c l e a r ly improbable that he possessed f irea rms during the commission of the narc otics offe nses bec ause the firea rms wer e recove red from the Honda at the time of Caba llero’s a rre st, while the heroin wa s later
re co v er edfr o m t h e S u

p er E i gh tm o t el ro o m wh er e C ab al l er o an d h i s co -d ef

en d an t s we re s t ay i n g. Howeve r, contra

ry to Caballero’ s argument , th is c o u r t in Un ite d S

tat es v . Ti sd aleadvised that the Guidelines do not re quire that the f irea rms be re adily

acc essible t o be conne cted with the dr ug
o ff ense; rather, a

defe ndant possesses a

firea rm during the commission of a drugoffe nse if the
we a po n c ou ld h a ve fa c ili ta te d th e ill e g a l tr ans a c tio n. 95 2 F .2 d 9 34 , 93 7 (6thCir . 1 99 2) ; se e als o Un ite d S tat es v . S te war t , 926 F.2d 899, 901–02 (9th Cir. 1991) (upholding a sente nce e nhance ment under § 2D 1.1(b)( 1) whe re de fenda nt’s firea rms wer e possessed fiftee n miles f rom the location of the drugtransac tion). In this case, Caba llero admitted that he a nd his co-def

endant s h ad traveled fr om Atl anta to De tr oit fo r the purp os e of tr a ff ic kin g he ro in an d th a t he kn ow ing ly po sse sse d b oth heroin and firea

rms. OMI T offic ers se ized two handg uns from the Honda , along with various pictures of

J esus M alver de, and a

K-9 unit positively

aler ted twice to the H onda, sug g esting that drug s had b e e nin

th e v e h ic le
. M o r e o v e r , Ca b a ll e r o p le d

g u il ty n o t o n ly to h e r o in tr a f f ic k in g a nd fi re arm s p os se ssi on

c ha rg e s b ut a lso to c on sp ir a c y to d ist ri bu te he ro in. Thus , a lth ou g h the fi re a rm s and her oin were rec overe d separ ately , Caballero possessed the handg uns during the commission ofNo. 09-1455

Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ba lle ro

12 the o n g o in g h e r o in

c o n s p ir a c y . A c c o r d in g ly , it is n o t c le ar ly

im p r o b a b le th a t t h e f ir e ar ms w e re po sse sse d d

ur ingthe c omm iss ion

of the dr ugof fe ns e s. Reg ar d in g th e r e ma in in g n e xu s f a c to r s , a lt h o u g h th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t in d ic a te w hether the firea rms wer e loade d, we ha

ve re peate dl y re co gn i z ed that a .357 Mag num revolver is a ty pe of firea rm normally

associate d with drug traff icking
. See United States v. Bailey , 394 F. App’ x 233, 23 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) (c iti ngc a se s) . In a dd iti on , Ca ba lle ro ha s n ot p ro vid e d “ any a lte rn a tiv e purp os e . . . to expl ain t h e p re s en ce of the fire arm,” Moses , 289 F.3d at 850, and thus has not satisfied the burden of demonstrating clea

r improbability . Con sequently , the district court did not plainly err when it imposed a two-le vel sentenc e enha nceme nt pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)( 1). III
. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on

of the dis tr ic t c ourt

in a ll a sp e c ts.