FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 51 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 94 -J EM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us VICTOR HUGO RODRIGUEZ, 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Vict orHug o R od rig ue z ap pe al s h is to ta l 7 0- m on th se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , andpo ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(2 )(B) . On ap pe al , Rod rig ue z ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct

co urt’s i m

po si ti on of afir earm

en ha nc em en t, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ), an d d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2. He al so arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d aleg al pre su m

pt io n t ha t a gu id el in es -ran ge sen te nc e sh ou ldap pl y . After r ev ie w, we affi rm .

I. FIRE ARM ENHANCEMENT Sect io n 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) of

th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de s fo r a two- le ve l in crea se in a de fen dant ’s off en se lev el , “ [i]f a d an ge ro us weap on (in cl ud in g a fir earm ) was po ss es se d.” The i nc reas e ap pl ie s “ if t he weap on was p res en t, u nl es s itis cle arl y

im pr ob ab le th atth e weap on was c on ne ct edwit h the off en se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 , cm

t. n .3. As a n e xa m

pl e, th e co m

m en ta ry st at es th atth e en ha nc em en t wo ul d n otap pl y “ if t he de fen da nt , arres te d a t h is res id en ce, h adan un lo ad edhu nt in g ri fle in th e cl os et .” Id . The go ve rn m en t h as th e in it ia l b ur de n t o s ho w by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t “ th e fi rearm was p res en t atth e si te of the ch arg edco nduc t” or t ha t

“ th e d efen dantpo ss es se d afir earm du rin g c on du ctass oc ia te d wi th th e o ffen se of co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Howev er, the go ve rn m en t n eedno t p ro ve th atth e fi rearm was u se d t o fa ci li ta te th e of fen se . Uni te d S ta te s v . Aud ai n, 2 54 F.3d12 86 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). If th e 2go ve rn m en t m eet s i ts in it ia l b ur de n, the n t he ev id en ti ary bu rd en sh ift s t o t he

de fen da nt , who m

us t d em on strat e th ata co nn ect io n b etween th e weap on an d t he of fen se was “ cl earl y

im pr ob ab le .” Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3dat 1 22 0 (q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . 1 Here, ac co rd in g t o t he un di sp ut edfact s i n t he Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep ort (“ PSI” ), Ro dr ig ue z dro ve hi s C he vr ol etTaho e SUV to a McDo na ld ’s res taur an t t o s el l co cai ne to co nf id en ti al so ur ces work in g fo r la w enf or cem en t. Afte r th e d el iv ery ve hi cl e, an Isu zuTroo pe r, arri ve d i n t he pa rk in g l ot , Rod rig ue z an d t he m enin th e Is uz u Tro op er were arre st ed . Inv es ti ga to rs fou nda 9mmsemiau to m at ic fir earm

in a gu n c as e inRo dr ig ue z’s Tah oe SUV andth ree k il og ram s o f co cai ne in th e Is uz u Tro op er. Ro dr ig ue z h el d aco nc eal edfir earm pe rm itan d li cen se is su edby the st at e o f Fl or id a. At s en te nc in g, t he pa rti es di d n otdi sp ut e th atDefen da ntRo dr ig ue z’s fir earm was s to redin a gu n c as e u nd er t he rear sea t o n the dri ve r’s si de of h is Tah oe SUV. The g ov ern m en t s ta te d, wi th ou t o bjec ti on fro m Defen da nt Ro dr ig ue z, th atth e g un cas e was un lo ck edan d t he gu n was ful ly loa de d. Th e go ve rn m en t s ub m it te d api ctur e o f th e fi rearm in it s ca se alo ng wit h a n u nu se d g un
Wit h reg ard to § 2D1.1(b)(1) ’s fire arm e nhance ment, we r eview the district court’s 1 finding s of fa ct for c lear

err or and its application of the SentencingGuidelines to those fa cts de novo. United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006). 3lo ck . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t t he gu n was “ inth e cas e, imm ed ia te ly beh in d

[Ro dr ig ue z] in t he ve hi cl e, th e cas e was no t l oc ke d, i t was no t o pe n, b utitwas n ot lo ck ed ,” ev enth ou gh “ [h ]e hadeas y acce ss to a gu n l oc k.” The d is tri ctco urt 2
co nc lu de d t ha t the § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fi rearm en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d b ecau se Ro dr ig ue z

“pr ob ab ly” hadth e fi rearm th ere a s “ pe rs on al pro te ct io n” an d t he fir earm “ was in vo lv edinth e tr an sa ct io n t o the ex te ntth atitwas t he re t o b ackhi m up if h e ne ed edit .” Bec au se Ro dr ig ue z d idno t d is pu te th e p res en ce o f hi s fi rearm in hi s Tah oe SUV at t he sce ne of t he dru g d eal , th e b ur de n s hi fte d t o R odrig ue z to sh ow t ha t th e co nn ect io n b etween hi s fi rearm an d t he off

en se was c le arl y

im pr ob ab le . Bas ed on th e u nd is pu te d fa ct s, Ro dr ig ue z d idno t m eethi s b ur de n. Ro dr ig ue z b ro ug ht th e lo ad edgu n t o t he McDo na ld ’s parki ng lo t wh ere h e p lann edto m ak e th e co cai ne tra ns act io n. Du rin g t he dru g d eal , Rod rig ue z ret ai ne d a cces s an d c on tro l ov er t he ful ly loa de d fi rearm , whi ch was i n h is un lo ck edgu n c as e u nd er t he rear , dr iv er’s s id e se at . Neit he r th e fac t tha t Ro dr ig ue z h ada li cen se to carry th e g un no r th e fac t tha t h e g otou t o f hi s v eh ic le witho utacce ss in g t he gu n m ak es th e co nn ect io n b etweenth e g un an d t he dru g d eal “ cl earl y im pr ob ab le .” Acco rd in gl y , The pa rties did not object to these fa ctual finding s in the district court or on a ppeal. 2 4we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt erredin ap pl y in g t he two -le ve l fi rearm in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ).

II . SAFETY-VALVE RELI EF

“ Safe ty-val ve rel ie f al lo ws fo r se nt en ci ng wit ho utreg ardto an y st atut ory m in im um , with re sp ectto cert ai n o ffen se s, wh en sp eci fic requi rem en ts are m et .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil ki nt as , 47 0 F .3d13 39 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee al so 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f); U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2. The de fen da ntm us t p ro ve hi s el ig ib il it y

for sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f by a pre po nd eran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cru z, 10 6 F.3 d 1 55 3, 1 55 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . To be eli gi bl e, am on g o th er t hi ng s, a d efen da nt m us t n otha ve “po ss es s[ ed ] a fi rearm . . . in co nn ect io n wi th th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2(a )(2 ). 3 Here, Ro dr ig ue z d idno t carry hi s b ur de n t o s ho w he was eli gi bl e fo r sa fet y va lv e rel ie f. As the di st ric t co urt fo un d, Ro dr ig ue z co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d t he gu n “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” th e ch arg edco cai ne tra ffi ck in g o ffen se s. Sp eci fic al ly, Ro dr ig ue z ad m it te d o wni ng th e lo ad edgu n a ndpu tt in g i t i n an u nl oc ke d g un cas e in hi s Tah oe SUV, whi ch he th en dro ve to th e p la nn eddru g d eal . See Un it ed St at es v. Dero se , 74 F.3d11 77 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata de fen da nt
In revie wingthe denial of safe ty -valve relief

under § 5C1.2(a)(2) , we r eview the district 3 court’s f indings of f

act f or cle ar e rror

and its application of the Sente ncingGuidelines to those fac ts de novo. United States v. J ohnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1301 (11th Cir. 2004). 5ha d c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n i f he ex erci se d “ own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l”

ov er an it em

it se lf o r th e p la ce o f co nc eal m en t o f th e it em , su ch as ave hi cl e); Uni te d S ta te s v . Jac ks on , 27 6 F .3d12 31 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atin co ns tru in g t he “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” req ui rem en t i n o th er fi rearm en ha nc em en ts un de r th e g ui de li ne s, t hi s C ou rt h as co nc lu de d t ha t “ m ere p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm can be en ou gh ” b ecau se “ itm a[k es ] se ns e to co nc lu de th atth e fi rearm po te nt ia ll y em bo ld en edth e d efen da ntto un de rta ke il li ci t d ru g s al es ”). Thu s, the di st ric t co urt di d n oterr i n d en y in g R od rig ue z’s reque stforsaf ety -v al ve rel ie f. II I. REASO NABLENE SS A sen te nc in g c ou rt m ay

no t p res um e th atth e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le . Nels on v. Un it edSta te s, 5 55 U.S. 35 0, 3 52 , 12 9 S . Ct. 8 90 , 89 2 (2 00 9) . Rath er, aft er ca lc ul at in g t he gu id el in es ran ge , th e se nt en ci ng co urt m us t

“ co ns id er wh atsen te nc e is ap pr op ria te forth e in di vi du al de fen da ntin li gh t o f th e st atut ory sen te nc in g fa ct or s, 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), ex pl ai ni ng an y va ria nc e fro m th e fo rm er wi th refe ren ce t o t he lat te r.” Id . at 3 51 , 12 9 S . Ct. at89 1- 92 (rem an di ng forres en te nc in g wh ere d is tri ctco urt s ai d t ha t t he gu id el in es were

“ co ns id eredpre su m

pt iv el y reas on ab le ” an d t ha t “ un le ss th ere’s a g oo d re as on in th e [s ta tu to ry

sen te nc in g] fact or s . . . , th e Gui de li ne sen te nc e is th e rea so nabl e se nt en ce” ( br ack et s i n o rig in al )). 6Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y ga ve “ gr eatweig ht ” to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es an d app li eda pr es um pt io n t ha t a g ui de li ne s s en te nc e was reas on ab le . Rod rig ue z fo cu se s o n o ne st at em en t b y th e d is tri ctco urt “ th at Co ng res s h as anab so lu te rig htto setgu id el in es forsen te nc in gs .” Howev er, wh en readin co nt ex t, t he di st ric t co urt’s s ta te m en t d oe s n otrefl ectth atitim pe rm is si bl y pr es um edth ata se nt en ce wi th inth e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge was re as on ab le . In it ia ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t i nt en de d t o i m po se a se nt en ce atth e lo w endof t he advi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge “ un le ss [de fen se co un se l] canco nv in ce m e” t o “ go be lo w” th atran ge . The d is tri ctco urt t he n l is te ne d a s d efen se co un se l arg ue d t ha t v ari ou s m it ig at in g fa ct or s warran te d ado wnwar d v ari an ce, i nc lu di ng th at : (1 ) Ro dr ig ue z was animm ig ran t wh o b ecame a U.S. citi zen an d was th e fi rs t in hi s fa m il y

to go to co ll eg e; (2) Ro dr ig ue z h adwork edha rdat ago odfact ory job to supp ort h is fam il y ; (3 ) he ha d l os t tha t jo b wh en th e p lantclo se d; an d (4 ) he was ex pe rie nc in g s eri ou s fi na nc ia l d iff ic ul ti es when he was p res su redin to co m m it ti ng th e o ffen se s b y

a work s up erv is or(on e o f th e co nf id en ti al so ur ces ) so he co ul d rep ay a de bt . Whe n d efen se co un se l m en ti on edth e m an y let te rs of s up po rt f

orRo dr ig ue z th atco un se l h adsubm it te d, t he di stric t co urt i nd ic at editha d n otrece iv edth e le tt ers an d t oo k arece ss to readth em . After r ead in g t he let te rs , th e d is tri ctco urt 7m ad e th e fo ll owi ng st at em en t: Mr. Ro dr ig ue z, y ou ’re ve ry lu cky y ou ha ve ve ry go od fri en ds . You ha ve fri en ds who ha ve go ne th e ex tra m il e fo r y ou an d sh own y ou th ei r supp ort by writ in g th es e le tt ers , as ki ng m e to be le ni en t wit h y ou . My pr ob le m is th at I th in k th at Co ng res s ha s an ab so lu te rig ht to se t gu id el in es fo r se nt en ci ng s. And whi le y ou m ay ve ry well ha ve fal le n un de r th e in flu en ce of a pa rti cu la r in di vi du al who was y ou r supe rio r at work, th e Ch ie f Ju st ic e of th e Supr em e Co urt co ul d co m e to m e an d sa y “ if y ou can se t up a tra ns act io n I wil l do gr eat fo r y ou ” an d I co ul dn ’t do it . And I no t on ly co ul dn ’t do it , I wou ld n’t do it . The fact th at y ou were ab le to d o it is no t go od . Mea ns th at y ou ha ve so m e fam il iarit y wit h pe op le who do th is so rt o f th in g. An d t he factth aty ou were ab le to su cces sf

ul ly do it an d no t jus t ta lk th e ta lk , li ke so m an y pe op le on th e st reet , sh ows th at m ay

be y ou ’re no t ex act ly th e pe rs on th at th es e pe op le th atare wri ti ng th e le tt ers be li ev e y ou to be . The di stric t co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t b ecau se Ro dr ig ue z d id“ no t g etth e b en efi t of th e sa fet y

va lv e,” t he co urt “ co ul dn ’t go be lo w 60 m on th s ev en if I wan te d t o, an d I d on ’t th in k i t’s ap pr op ria te to go be lo w 70 m on th s, s o I wi ll no t ag ree wi th th at .” Defen se co un se l t he n p oi nt edou t t ha t Ro dr ig ue z h adto ap pr oa ch two pe op le be fo re h e fo un d t he co cai ne th e co nf id en ti al so ur ce wan te d a ndon ly kne w th os e two pe op le be cau se th ey all li ve d i n t he same sm al l t own . The d is tri ctco urt st at ed , “ I un de rs tandwhaty ou ’re saying . I do n’t t hi nkth atdi m in is he s t he factth at he kn ew.” The di st ric t co urt h eardfro m Ro dr ig ue z, who ap ol og iz edfor hi s cri m es . The d is tri ctco urt t he n s ta te d t ha t i t h ad“ co ns id eredth e st at em en ts of a ll

8th e p art ie s, t he pre se nt en ce re po rt wh ic h c on ta in s t he advi so ry gu id el in es an d t he st atut ory fact or s,” a ndim

po se d the 70 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e. Inco nt ex t, t he di st ric t co urt’s s ta te m en t t ha t Co ng res s “ ha d the ab so lu te rig htto setgu id el in es forsen te nc in gs ” d oe s n otin di cat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e g ui de li ne s ra ng e to be pre su m pt iv el y reas on ab le . Rath er, the reco rdas awho le in di cat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, of whi ch th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge was ju ston e, an d c on cl ud edth ata 70
- m on th sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te gi ve n t he pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of R odrig ue z’s cas e. To t he ex te ntRo dr ig ue z arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt g av e “ to o m uc h weig ht ” to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r. A di st ric t co urt do es no t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh en itatt ach es “ gr eatweig ht ” to a pe rm is si bl e fact or . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 56 -5 9, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 60 0- 02 (20 07 ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 91 -9 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (“ [A] di st ric t co urt’s u nju st ifi edrel ia nc e o n a ny on e Sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or m ay be a sym pt om of a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e,” b utatt ach in g g reatweig htto a fact ordo es

“ no t n eces sa ril y

m ak e a s en te nc e u nr eas on ab le .”). W e d o n otsec on d g ue ss th e weig htth e se nt en ci ng co urt g iv es an y gi ve n fa ct or“ as lo ng as t he sen te nc e ul ti m at el y

im po se d i s re as on ab le in li gh t o f al l t he cir cu m st an ces pre se nt ed .” 9Uni te d S ta te s v . Sni pe s, 6 11 F.3d85 5, 8 72 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Here, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t re ly sol el y or u nju st ifi ab ly on t he advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredm an y § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, i nc lu di ng th e ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da ntan d t he cir cu m st an ces of t he cri m e. To t he ex te ntth e d is tri ctco urt g av e m or e wei gh t t o t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s, t he di st ric t co urt was wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n. AFFIRMED.

10