In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 05-4277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MIGUEL OCAMPO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 79—Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.

____________

ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 2006—DECIDED JANUARY 8, 2007

____________

Before BAUER, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Miguel Ocampo pleaded guilty

to distributing 52.1 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possessing a firearm

with a removed serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(k). In calculating his Advisory Guidelines sentencing range, the district court imposed a two-level enhancement for using a firearm during the offense and declined

to reduce the sentence for cooperation. The district

court sentenced Ocampo to 108 months’ imprisonment,

which he now appeals. We affirm.
2 No. 05-4277

I. Background

On December 7, 2004, Ocampo met an undercover

government cooperating source (“CS”) at Ice Bar in Chicago, Illinois, where Ocampo sold the CS 13.9 grams

of crystal methamphetamine.

On January 12, 2005, Ocampo agreed to provide the CS

with an additional two ounces of crystal methamphetamine. That night in a series of recorded conversations, Ocampo informed the CS that he was in Skokie,

Illinois and the transaction would be delayed due to traffic.

He told the CS that he had to go home to retrieve the

methamphetamine. When the CS indicated that her

fictitious customer was impatient, Ocampo suggested

they meet at Ocampo’s home. Instead, Ocampo and the

CS agreed to meet in a couple hours at Ice Bar. Undercover

agents then followed Ocampo to his home before he arrived

at the bar. There, he spoke to the CS and an undercover

Drug Enforcement Administration task force officer.

Eventually the transaction occurred across the street at a

restaurant.

Pursuant to a warrant, DEA agents arrested Ocampo at

his residence in Cicero, Illinois on January 27, 2005.

Agents recovered a Intratec Tec-22 weapon with a removed serial number, a banana clip, and twenty-six

rounds of ammunition from the dresser drawer of his

bedroom. In the same dresser drawer, agents found a

loaded .40 caliber Taurus semiautomatic handgun, a

handheld digital scale, and two small plastic bags with

quantities of a controlled substance. In an adjacent

dresser drawer, agents found a first-aid kit containing

drug paraphernalia, drug packaging materials, and clear

plastic ziploc bags. On the bedroom floor, agents found

a handheld police scanner and a police call frequency

guide book. Agents also found small amounts of marijuana,

methamphetamine, brown heroin, and numerous pipes.
No. 05-4277 3

On top of Ocampo’s dresser was a drug ledger listing his

customers, including the CS, and the dollar amounts that

those customers owed him. The search also uncovered a

surveillance camera hidden in a birdhouse outside his

residence with a live feed to a television in Ocampo’s

bedroom.

On April 6, 2005, a grand jury indicted Ocampo with

knowingly and intentionally distributing methamphetamine in excess of 5 grams in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1); knowingly and intentionally distributing

methamphetamine in excess of 50 grams in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and knowingly possessing a firearm

which had the manufacturer’s serial number removed,

obliterated, or altered in violation of 18 § U.S.C. 922(k).

Ocampo pleaded guilty and acknowledged that he went

home to get the drugs.

At the sentencing hearing, several agents testified to

the above facts. Ocampo asserted, however, that the

weapon in his home was not involved in the offense

because he maintained that the drugs were not at his

home. Additionally, Ocampo argued for a downward

departure in sentencing for his previous cooperation

with authorities. Ocampo testified that drug sales were

his sole means of livelihood and that he would use two

to five grams of crystal methamphetamine a day to support his addiction. He testified that he only kept personal

use quantities of drugs at his home and the plastic bags

were to portion out his personal use of drugs. He also

admitted that he used the digital scale found in his

bedroom to weigh the drugs that he sold to his customers

but insisted that he weighed the grams in his truck or at

a nearby motel. He stated that on this occasion, his source

in Skokie loaned him two ounces of crystal methamphetamine for the CS. Ocampo said he then went home to

get high but at other times he would also get high at Ice

Bar. He testified that after he returned home from Skokie,
4 No. 05-4277

while he was inside his home, he left the drugs for the

CS under the driver’s seat of his truck.

Ocampo explained that two months prior to his arrest,

he took the Intratec Tec-22 weapon and ammunition from

another drug dealer when the dealer was under the

influence of drugs and acting dangerously. Ocampo also

stated that two days prior to his arrest, a different

drug dealer, Pedro Martinez, dropped off the .40 caliber

Taurus semiautomatic handgun at his apartment and

the clip fell out of the gun.

Ocampo participated in a proffer session with the

government in which he identified other narcotics dealers,

including Pedro Martinez, who was also identified by

a cooperating source. Ocampo’s girlfriend cooperated

with the government in its investigation of Martinez by

working as a confidential source in an effort to benefit

Ocampo’s case. The parties stipulated that Ocampo

rejected an offer to postpone his sentencing hearing in

order to allow him and his girlfriend to complete their

cooperation with the government.

At sentencing, the district court determined that

Ocampo’s total offense level was 31. This included a twolevel increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because

the offense conduct involved the possession of a dangerous weapon and a three-level reduction for his timely

acceptance of responsibility. The district court found

that it was more likely than not that Ocampo had the

drugs at his home, thus it was not “clearly improbable

that the weapons [were] connected with the offense.” See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and Application Note 3. The district court determined that Ocampo had a criminal

history category I, resulting in an advisory guideline

range of 108-135 months. The court declined a reduction

for cooperation, sentencing Ocampo to 108 months’ imprisonment. Ocampo timely filed this appeal.
No. 05-4277 5

II. Analysis

In the post-Booker era, we continue to review the district

court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error and

the application of those facts to the Sentencing Guidelines

de novo. United States v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783, 793 (7th

Cir. 2006).

Ocampo challenges the district court’s conclusion that

a weapon was used in the offense based on its determination that the drugs were at his home. Ocampo

contends that the government failed to demonstrate

that the weapon was either present or connected to the

offense. We disagree.

It is uncontroverted that Ocampo had been in possession

of the Intratec Tec-22 weapon at his home for approximately two months prior to his arrest. Ocampo does not

dispute that he declared his intention to retrieve the

methamphetamine from his home. Moreover, the evidence of drug distribution at Ocampo’s home was overwhelming. In evaluating evidence, trial judges are responsible for credibility determinations. United States v. Eddy,

8 F.3d 577, 583 (7th Cir. 1993). Here, the district court

weighed the credibility of the witnesses and rejected

Ocampo’s testimony. We find the district court properly

determined that the weapon was connected to the offense.

Ocampo also asserts that the district court erred by

failing to give Ocampo credit for the cooperation he

provided to the government. The district court did not

overlook Ocampo’s cooperation with the government;

rather, the district court properly considered both

Ocampo’s past cooperation and his current unwillingness to cooperate before concluding that it was not substantial and did not warrant a reduction. We find that

the district court did not err in rendering this conclusion.
6 No. 05-4277

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—1-8-07