T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay16,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. I SM A EL M O RA LES, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 7048 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR - 0 0 0 6 1 - 0 0 1 - WH) ( E . D . of O kl ahoma)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndant - A ppel l antI s m ael M or al es pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) an d (b)(1 )(A )(vii i) an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . T h e d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed h im to a term o f im p ri so n m en t of

1 7 4 m o n ths a n d 6 0 m o n ths o f su p erv ised release . M r. M or al es r ai s es tw o chal l enges t o hi s s ent ence . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ct courti m pr oper l ytr eat ed the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) as m andat ory . Second, he al l eges t her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt heT o avoi d confus i on, w hen w e r efe rt o defe ndant - appel l antI s m ael 1 M or al es byname, w e w i l l cal l hi m “M r . M or al es ”; w hen w e di s cus s hi s br other bynam e, w e w i l l use his full nam e, M art i n M oral es. -2- appl i cat i on of a tw o- l evel G ui del i nes enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a “ danger ous w eapon” under§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under18 U . S. C . § 1291, a n d w e a ffir m . I . BA CKGROUND M r. M o ra les is a M e x ica n c iti z e n w h o re sid e d in A rk o m a , O k lah o m a w ith h is b ro th e r, M a rtin M o ra les . D ru g E n fo rc e m e n t A d m in istra tio n (“ D E A ” ) a g e n ts 1 dev i sed a plan un der w hich a con fi den t i al source w ou l d p urchase m ethamphet ami ne fr om M r . M or al es . O n A pr i l 15, 2004, t he conf i dent i al s our ce m ade a contr ol l ed drug pur chas e fr om M r . M or al es att he r es i dence t hathe s har ed w ith h is b ro th e r. T h e s o u rc e w o re a h id d e n c a m e ra to re c o rd th e p u rc h a s e . F o llo w in g th e A p ril 1 5 p u rc h a se , the c o n f id e n tial so u rc e to ld th e D E A th a t a th fi r e a r m w a s o n a t a b l e n e a rM r . M o r a l e s d u r i n g t h e p u r c h a s e . Onl yo n e DEA ag en t t esti fied at th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g . H e re co u n ted th e c o n fid en ti al so u rce ’s c o m m u n ica tio n , w h ich a n o th e r D E A a g e n t w h o to o k p a rt in th e c o n v e rsa tio n w ith the s our ce ha d r el ay ed t o hi m . T he t es t i fy i ng agents ai d he w at ched the vi deo of the A pr i l 15 pur chas e, butcoul d notpos i t i vel yi dent i fyt he pr es ence of a w eapon

th d u e to th e ta p e ’s p o o r p ic to ri a l q u a lity. Fi ve day s l at eron A pr i l 20, 2004, D E A agent s arr anged a nothercontr ol l ed p u rc h a s e th ro u g h th e c o n fid e n tia l s o u rc e – th is tim e f ro m M r. M o ra le s ’s b ro th e r.-3-

Af t e rth e p u r c h a s e , M r . M o r a l e s ’ s b r o th e rwa s a rr e s t e d o u t s i d e o f h i s h o me . On th e s a m e d a y , M r. M o ra le s a ls o w a s a rr e s te d . T h e D E A a g e n ts th e n e x e c u ted a se a rc h w a rra n t an d se ize d a sh o tg u n , b o ltact i on r i fl e, a s emi - aut om at i c r i fl e, and a l oaded . 45 cal i berpi s t ol fr om the bedr oom cl os etof M r . M or al es ’ s br other . T heyal s o found i n the r es i dence amm uni t i on and a l ar ge amountof ca s h. T he t es t i fy i ng D E A agents ai d thathe a ls o p e rs o n a lly sa w w h a t a p p e a re d to b e a f ir e a rm o n a ta b le n e a r t h e f ro n t d o o r. H o w e v e r, h e su b se q u e n tlyre a lize d it w a s a re p lica g u n a n d d e c id e d to lea v e it i n th e h o m e . O n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. M o ra les w a s fo rm a llyc h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss in g w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te m e th a m p h e tam in e , in a q u a n tityin e x c e ss o f 5 0 g ra m s, in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d (b)(1 )(A )(vii i) an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . M r. M o r a l e s e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l ty th a ts a m e d a y. A tt he s ent enci ng on Sept ember23, 2004, M r . M or al es obj ect ed t o the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( “PSR ”) ar gui ng thatthe governm entpr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta s ent ence enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a “dange r ous w eapon” ( i . e. , a fi r earm ) underthe G ui del i nes . H e al s o cl ai m ed the G u idelines w ere u n co n sti tuti o n al un d er B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , h o w e v e r , fo u n d th e e n h a n c e m e n tw a s s u p p o r t e d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence and adopt ed the PSR as the fa ctual bas i s forthe se n ten c e . T h e c o u rt se n ten c e d M r. M o ra les to 1 7 4 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, w ith-4-

60 m onths of s upervi s ed r el eas e. M r . M or al es appea l ed the s ent ence , and on M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , w e v a c a ted th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d e d fo r re se n ten c in g in acc or dance w i th Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). See O rder , C ase N o . 0 4 -7 1 0 7 (M a r. 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). O n A p ri l 14 , 2 0 0 5 , the d istri ct co u rth eld a rese n tenc ing h ea ri n g , an d M r. M or al es agai n obj ect ed t o the fi r earm - pos s es s i on enhanc ement . W i th appr oval fr om the part i es , the di s tr i ctcour tt ook j udi ci al not i ce of the t es t i m onyand ev iden ce p rese n ted a t th e initi al sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . Itthen o v erru led M r. M or al es ’ s obj ect i on and s ent ence d hi m t o 174 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand 60 m onths of s upervi s ed r el eas e – the s ame se nt ence i thad i m pos ed i n the pr i or s ent enci ng. M r . M or al es t i m el yappea l ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON “E v en af

ter B ooker , w hen r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, w e revi ew l egal quest i on s de novo and . . . anyfac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , gi vi ng due defer ence t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the gui del i nes t o t he fa ct s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d a ltera tio n s o m itt e d ). T h e u lti m a te s e n te n c e is th e n re v ie w e d fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . S e e , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 -5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).-5-

A . The D i s t r i c t C our t D i d N ot A ppl y t he G ui de l i ne s i n A M andator y F as hi on and , C onse quentl y , D i d N ot E rr O n a p p e a l, M r. M o ra les c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt “ stric tlya d h e re d ” to the G ui del i nes and ther ebycontr avene d B ooker . M r . M or al es ar gues t hathe w oul d have r ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence i f the di s tr i ctcourthad noterr ed i n gi vi ng to o m u c h w e ig h t to th e G u id e lin e s . I n B ooker , the Supr eme C our thel d thatm andat or yappl i cat i on of the G u id e lin e s to ju d g e -fo u n d fa c ts (o th e r th a n a p rio r c o n v ictio n ) v io late s th e S ix th A m en d m en t. 5 4 3 U . S . at 23 2 -33 . T o cu re the co n sti tuti o n al pro b lem s, the C o u rt exci s ed pr ovi s i ons of the Sent enci ng R eform A ct , effect i vel ym aki ng the G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry in s te a d o f m a n d a to ry. S e e Wo lfe , 4 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 n .1 . B ookerpr ovi des that“w hi l e notbound t o appl yt he G ui del i nes , [a di s tr i ct court ] m us tcons ul tthos e G ui del i nes and t ake them i nt o acc ountw hen s ent enci ng. ” B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 6 4 . Im p o rt a n tly, B ookerdi d notpr ecl ude a di s tr i ctcourti n exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on fr om gi vi ng s i gni fi cantw ei ghtt o the G ui del i nes , w hi ch embodythe expe r tj udgm entof the U . S. Sent enci ng C o m m is s io n . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Te rr e ll , 445 F. 3d 1261, 1265 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] e ca nnots aythata di s tr i ctcourterr s w hen i tgi ves a hi gh degr ee of w ei ght t o the G ui del i nes i n i t s s ent enci ng deci s i ons . ”) . I n thi s r egar d, w e not ed i n Uni t ed S ta tes v . C ro c ke tt , 435 F. 3d 1305 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , thata di s tr i ctcourtm ay a p p ro p ria telyg iv e “ a h ig h lev e l o f d e fe re n c e ” to re c o m m e n d a tio n s p ro v id e d in-6-

the G ui del i nes t o keep s ent enci ng m ovi ng “‘ i n C ongr es s ’ pr efe rr ed di r ect i on, h e lp in g to a v o id e x c e ss iv e se n ten c in g d isp a rities w h ile m a in tain in g flex ib ili ty s uffi ci entt o i ndi vi dual i ze s ent ence s w her e nec es s ary . ’ ” 435 F. 3d at1318 ( quot i ng B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 6 4 ); se e Te rr e ll , 445 F. 3d at1264 ( not i ng that “[ e]v en af

ter B ooker , defe r ence t o the G ui del i nes i s es s ent i al ” t o advanc e the o bje c tiv e o f

s e n te n c in g u n ifo rm ity). T he di s tr i ctcourtw as w el l aw ar e of the advi s or ynatur e of the G ui del i nes af ter B ookerand the perm i s s i bl e s cope of i t s di s cr et i on as i tr el at es t o them. T he courtexpl i ci t l ys t at ed:

W hi l e the C our tr ecogni zes i ti s notbound bythe s ent enci ng gui del i ne ca l cul at i ons , the C our thas cons i der ed them and fi nds them t o be advi s oryi n natur e. A l s o t aken i nt o acc ountw hen fa sh io n in g a se n ten c e fo r th is d e fe n d a n t is h is c o o p e ra tio n w ith author i t i es and t i m el i nes s of hi s pl ea i n thi s cas e. T he s ent ence pr es cr i bed bythi s C our tr efl ect s the s er i ous nes s of the o ffen se, prom otes res pect for the law and provides j ust puni s hm entforthe offens e. T hi s s ent ence affor ds det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , pr ot ect s the publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of thi s defe ndantand pr ovi des corr ect i on tr eatm entforthe d e fe n d a n t in th e m o s t e ffe c tiv e m a n n e r. R . v o l. I II , T r. S e n te n c in g H e a ri n g a t 1 4 -1 5 (A p ri l 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 ). R e c o g n izin g th e G u id e lin e s to b e a d v iso ry , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cons ul t ed them. H ow ever , i tal s o r evi ew ed the PSR , w ei ghed the t es t i m ony pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng, and cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s . I ns ofaras the di s tr i ctcourti n fac taffor ded s i gni fi cantw ei ghtt o the G ui del i nes i n fas hi oni ng M r. M o rales’s sen tenc e, i t did n o t err.-7-

B . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt D i d N ot E rr i n Incor porat i ng i nt o M r. M oral es ’ s Sent ence A T w o- L evelE nhan cem ent U nder G ui del i nes § 2 D 1 . 1 (b )(1) M r. M o ra les a rg u e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro d u c e d in su fficie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor ta tw o- l evel enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) forpos s es s i on of a dange r ous w eapon ( i . e. , a fi r earm ) . Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends t hatbeca us e the a u th o rities se ize d th e g u n s f ro m h is b ro th e r’s ro o m fiv e d a y s fo llo w in g h is admi t t ed drug tr ans act i on, the governm entfai l ed t o m eeti t s bur den of demonstr at i ng thathe pos s es s ed the guns . W e di s agr ee. T h e G u id e lin e s p ro v id e a se n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n t fo r w e a p o n p o ss e ss io n to re fle c t th e “ in c re a s e d d a n g e r o f v io le n c e w h e n d ru g tr a ffic k e rs p o s s e s s w e a p o n s .” U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1 cmt . n. 3. Sect i on 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) appl i es i f the governm entcan pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hata w eapon w as pr es ent , unl es s t he d e fe n d a n t ca n sh o w “ it i s c lea rlyim p ro b a b le th a t th e w e a p o n w a s c o n n e c ted w ith th e o ffe n se .” U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 c m t. n.3 ; s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Zavalz a- R odr iguez , 3 7 9 F . 3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 -85 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). G en era ll y , p o sses sion u n d er § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) can be “s at i s fi ed bys how i ng m er e pr oxi m i tyt o the offens e. ” Uni t ed S ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 3 9 2 , 1 4 0 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U n d e r G u id e lin e s § 1 B 1 .3 (a ), a d e fe n d a n t is h e ld a c c o u n tab le fo r “ a ll ac ts and omi s s i ons comm i t t ed, ai ded, abett ed, couns el ed, comm anded, i nduced, procured o r w i l l full ycaused byt he d efen dan t ” t hat w ere partof the sam e cou rs e o f c o n d u c to rc o mm o n s c h e me o rp l a n a s t h e o ffe n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . U. S . S . G. §-8-

1B 1. 3( a) . Sect i on 1B 1. 3’ s comm ent aryfur therexpl ai ns thata defendantm aybe hel d r es pons i bl e forthe “c onductof other s i n fur ther ance of the exe cut i on of the j oi nt l y - undert aken c r i m i nal act i vi tythatw as r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. McFarlane , 933 F. 2d 898, 899 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ); s ee U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 c m t. n .2 . It is o f n o m o m e n t th a t th o se e n g a g e d in j oi nt l y - undert aken c r i m i nal act i vi tyar e notform al l ychar ged w i th a cons pi r acy offe ns e. Id . ( defi ni ng “j oi nt l yundert aken c r i m i nal act i vi ty , ” as focus i ng on conductundert aken “ bythe defendanti n conce r tw i th other s , w hetherornot c h a rg e d a s a c o n sp ira c y ” ); s ee U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 c m t. n .1 . H er e, M r . M or al es w as char ged and c onvi ct ed of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, w h ic h in c lu d e d a n a id in g a n d a b e ttin g th e o ry o f lia b ility. See R . v o l. I , D o c . 7 (c rim in a l in fo rm a tio n ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 ; s ee ge ner al l y Uni t ed Stat es v. C ook , 745 F .2 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ It sh o u ld b e n o ted th a t aid in g a n d a b e tti n g is notan i ndepende ntcr i m e under18 U . S. C . § 2; the s t atut e pr ovi des no penal ty , but m ere lyab o li sh es th e c o m m o n -l aw d ist inction b etw ee n p ri n cipa l and ac ce sso ry . ”) M r . M or al es has notdi s put ed thathe w as i nvol ved i n the offens e w i th hi s br other ( i . e. , M art i n M or al es ) . Fori ns t ance , he fa i l ed t o obj ectt o the PSR ’ s fac tual re c itatio n s, w h ich re v e a led h is jo in tly -u n d e rta k e n d ru g tra ffick in g w ith h is b ro th e r. See R . v o l. II, P S R ¶ 1 7 (“In this case , Ism ae l and M arti n M o rales w ere i nvol ved i n the di s tr i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne. ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ct c o u rt c o u ld p ro p e rlya ttribu te to M r. M o ra les a ll o f th e re a so n a b lyfo re se e a b le-9-

act s undert aken byhi s br otheri n fur ther ance of thei rj oi nt l y - under t aken c r i m i nal a c tiv ity. See McFarlane , 933 F. 2d at899 ( fi ndi ng that§§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) and 1B 1. 3( a) ( 1) t ogetheral l ow a s ent enci ng court“t o at tr i but e t o a defendantw eapons pos s es s ed byhi s codefendant s i f the pos s es s i on of w eapons w as know n t o the d efen d an t or reas o n ab lyfo rese ea b le byh im ”). W e conc l ude thatM art i n M or al es ’ s pos s es s i on of fi r earm s i n the r es i dence thathe s har ed w i th M r . M or al es w as r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e t o M r . M or al es . T he r es i dence w as the l ocus of the br other s ’ drug- tr aff i cki ng oper at i on. W e have recogn i zed thatfi rearm s ar e “t oo l s of t he tr ade” for drug t raffi ckers. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 938 F. 2d 1078, 1083 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( not i ng fi r earm s and large am o u n ts of

ca sh are v iew ed as “ too ls of the trad e” fo r dru g tr affick ing ); a c c o rdUn itedS ta tes v . So to , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 7 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (“firearm s are as m uch t ool s of the tr ade a s ar e comm onl yr ecogni zed a r t i cl es of nar cot i cs p a ra p h e rn a lia ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . V al i dat i ng t hi s vi ew , the age nt s s ei zed f i r earm s fr om the bedr oom cl os etof M r . M or al es ’ s br otheron t he daythathe s ol d m ethamphet ami ne t o the confi dent i al s our ce. T hatw as onl yfi ve day s aft erthe conf i dent i al s our ce pur chas ed met hamphet ami ne att he r es i dence fr om M r . M or al es . T her e i s no evidence in the record t o sug gestthat M r. M oral es’ s brother ( M art i n M oral es) att empt ed t o conce al t he pr es ence of the fi r earm s fr om M r . M or al es . ForM r . M or al es w oul d l i kel yoffe rt he fol l ow i ng r et or t : “N o t es t i m ony 3 w as p rese n ted th at A p p ell an t had ac ce ss to . . . the g u n s seize d fro m h is bro ther’s bedr oom . ” A pl t . B r . at5. H ow ever , t her e w as abundantevi dence t hatt he fi r earm s w er e i n a r es i dence thatM r . M or al es s har ed w i th hi s br other . A bs ent p ro o f to th e c o n tr a ry, o n e m a yre a s o n a b ly in fe r t h a t h e in fa c t h a d a c c e s s to th e m . See Un ite dS ta te s v . Mc Fa r la n e , 9 3 3 F . 2 d 8 9 8 , 8 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). In pr es ent i ng hi s obj ect i ons t o t he U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce, M r . M or al es as s er t ed that the fi r earm s w er e i n hi s br other ’ s bedr oom “underl ock and ke y . ” R . vol . I I , L et t er of D e fe ns e Couns e l t o U. S. Pr ob a t i on O ff i c e a t1 ( A ug . 20 , 20 04 ) ( PSR a tta c h m e n t) . N o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd s u p p o rt s th a t a s s e rt io n .

M r . M or al es ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have focus ed on 4 w h e th e r h e p e rso n a llyp o ss e ss e d d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n s a n d th a t itim p ro p e rlyh e ld hi m acc ount abl e forfi r earm s as s oci at ed w i th hi s br other . B eca us e the pr es ence of th o se fire a rm s w a s re a so n a b lyfo re se e a b le to M r. M o ra les , as a m a tter o f law , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. -10- ex am p le, there is no ev iden ce that M arti n M o rales too k sp ec ial step s to li m itM r. M oral es’ s access t o the fi rearm s. 3 T h e re fe ren ce d fa cts str o n g lysu p p o rtthe c o n clus ion that the fir ea rm s w ere rea so n ab lyfo rese ea b le t o M r. M o rales. C o n seq u en tl y , u n d er the G u idelines , M r. M or al es i s acc ount abl e forthe fi r earm s . A nd i thar dl ycan be gai ns ai d thatt he 4 fir e a rm s w e re in c lo s e p ro x im ity to th e d ru g -t ra ffic k in g o ffe n s e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Heckard , 238 F. 3d 1222, 1233 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng thatgovernm ent h a d “ m e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f re g a rd in g p o s s e s s io n in p ro x im ity to th e o ffe n s e ,” w h e n g u n fo u n d “ p h y sic a llyn e a r” th e d e fe n d a n t in a lo c a tio n th a t w a s “ re p e a ted ly the l ocus fordrug tr aff i cki ng” 24 day s fol l ow i ng defe ndant ’ s “l as tdocument ed d ru g a c tiv ity” ).-11-

If th e re is s u fficie n t p ro o f th a t a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n (c h a rg e a b le to defe ndant ) w as i n pr oxi m i tyt o the drug offe ns e, the bur den s hi ft s t o the defe ndantt o demonstr at e thati ti s cl ear l yi m pr obabl e the w eapon w as connec t ed to th e o ffe n s e . E . g . , Zavalz a- R odr iguez , 37 9 F . 3d at11 84 -85. M r. M oral es, h o w e v e r, h a s m a d e n o m e a n in g f u l atte m p t to c a rryth is b u rd e n ; th e fo c u s o f h is arg u m en t w as th e a ll eg ed “w ea k n ature o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce o f fir ea rm p o ss e ss io n .” A p lt. B r. at 7 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id no terri n ap ply i ng a § 2 D 1. 1(b) enhan cem ent t o M r. M oral es. T he d i stri ctcou rt ’s sent encing o rderi s AF F I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge