A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 28, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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. F RE DY F AB I AN M A R Q U E Z - M A D R I D , al s o know n as Fr edyM ar quez Fabi an,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 5024 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR - 1 3 0 - K) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

F re d yF a b ian M a rq u e z -M a d rid a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i on foracqui t t al on the tw o char ges agai ns thi m , one countof pos s es s i ng 100 k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f

ma r ij u a n a wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i ) and one c ountof us i ng orcarry i ng a fi r earm dur i ng-2-

a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a ffic k in g c ri m e in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ). W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o heart hi s di r ectcr i m i nal appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1291, a n d w e A F F I R M. I. M r . M ar quez- M adr i d w as tr i ed befor e a j ury , w hi ch hea r d t es t i m onyfr om fourw i t nes s es : Sean Lar ki n, a patr ol s upervi s orw i th the Tul s a Pol i ce D epart m ent ; J eff

H ender s on and Fr ank K hal i l , offi cer s w i th the Tul s a Pol i ce D epart m ent ; and M r . M ar quez- M adr i d. Ser geantL arki n t es t i fi ed thaton M ay26, 2006, he, al ong w i th other offi cer s , par t i ci pat ed i n a pol i ce vi s i tt o a hous e i n T ul s a. A s he appr oache d the f ro n t d o o r, h e c o u ld se e th ro u g h th e f ro n t w in d o w a n d o b se rv e d tw o H isp a n ic m a le s , o n e o f

w h o m w a s M r. M a rq u e z -M a d ri d , s ittin g o n th e c o u c h d ri n k in g b e e r. Ser geantL arki n coul d al s o s ee thr ough the l i vi ng r oom i nt o the ki t chen, w her e he obs erved “tw o br ow n packa ges t hatw er e cutopen as w el l as num er ous boxes c o n tain in g v a rio u s Z ip lo c -siz e b a g g ies .” A p p ., V o l. V , at 1 0 . H e tes tifie d th a t in hi s exper i ence , s uch mat er i al s w er e a c om m on m eans of pac kagi ng nar cot i cs for d istrib u tio n . A s it tu rn e d o u t, th e p a c k a g e w ra p p in g s w e re p las tic s e a led w ith brow n tape and cl ear t ape, w i t h airfres hen ers on the insi de. T he sergeant al so tes tifie d th a t air f

re sh e n e rs a n d fa b ric so f ten e rs c o m m o n lya re u se d to tryto d is g u is e th e o d o r o f

m a riju a n a .-3-

W hen the off

i cer s knocked on the door , M r . M ar quez- M adr i d di s appea r ed fr om s i ght , and af

t era del ay , t he otherm an, J uan Luj ano, opened the door . W hen th e d o o r o p e n e d , S e rg e a n t L a rk in n o tic e d a v e ry st ro n g o d o r o f m a riju a n a . M r. L ujano co n sen ted to all o w the p o li ce o fficers to e n ter th e h o u se. T h e o fficers w al ked thr ough t he hous e t o ens ur e thatno one el s e w as pr es ent . I n a bedr oom j us tbey ond t he hal l bathr oom , t heys aw l ar ge pl as t i c t ot es ors t or age bi ns and a pl as t i c garbage c an cont ai ni ng w r apped br i cks of m ar ij uana i n packa gi ng i dent i cal t o t he mat er i al s on t he ki t chen t abl e, Z i pl oc bags cont ai ni ng m ar ij uana, and a di gi t al s cal e. T he doort o t he bedr oom fr om the hal l w as open. T he hous e had no tele v isio n (o r a t lea st n o t o n e th a t w a s o n ), n o ra d io , n o fo o d b u t se v e ra l d rin k s in th e re f rig e ra to r, an d little s ig n s o f o c c u p a n c yb e y o n d a sm a ll am o u n t o f fe m a le cloth ing in o n e b ed roo m ; i n li g h t of thes e fac tors, in S erg ea n t L ark in’s e x p e ri e n c e , th e h o u s e w a s a “ s ta s h h o u s e ,” a h o u s e u s e d s o le ly fo r s to ri n g d ru g s . T he mar ij uana thatw as r ecove r ed w ei ghed more than 220 pounds ( 100 k ilo g ra m s), p ro b a b lyw o rth m o re th a n $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 w h e n b ro k e n d o w n in to o n e -o u n c e in c re m e n ts a n d so ld o n th e stre e t. O ffi cerH ender s on acc om pani ed Ser geantL arki n t o the fr ontdoorw hen the offi cer s arr i ved att he hous e. L i ke Ser geantL arki n, he s aw tw o H i s pani c mal es s i t t i ng on t he couc h dr i nki ng beer . H e t es t i fi ed thatw hen the off i cer s knocked, o n e m a le c a m e to w a rd th e d o o r a n d th e o th e r ( M r. M a rq u e z -M a d ri d ) d is a p p e a re d . O ffice r H e n d e rso n a n d a n o th e r o ffice r w e n t ar o u n d th e b a c k o f th e h o u se to se e if-4-

M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid w a s le a v in g o u t th e b a c k . T h e ysa w M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid on t he bac k por ch, w al ki ng aw ayfr om them. T heycal l ed t o hi m . H e cont i nued t o w al k fora fe w fee t , t hen made a thr ow i ng m ot i on and tur ned bac k t ow ar d the o ffice rs. W h e n O ffice r H e n d e rso n a sk e d to se e h is h a n d s, h e c o n tin u e d to w a lk to w a rd th e b a c k fe n c e . T he off i cer s s ubdued and s ecur ed M r . M ar quez- M adr i d and s poke t o the offi cer s i n t he hous e. A tt hatpoi nt , O ffi cerH ender s on s m el l ed mar ij uana thr ough t he open s l i di ng gl as s dooratt he bac k of the hous e. A ft erthe off i cer s br ought M r . M ar quez- M adr i d i nt o t he hous e, O ffi cerH ender s on s aw the mar ij uana i n t he bedr oom . H e t ol d Ser geantL arki n aboutM r . M ar quez- M adr i d’ s act i ons i n the b a c k y a rd a n d th e tw o o ffice rs w e n t to se a rc h th e a re a w h e re M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid had bee n. T heydi s cover ed tw o l oaded f i r earm s l y i ng on the gr as s . A ft erent er i ng a s t i pul at i on t hata governm entchemi s t , i f ca l l ed, w oul d confi r m thatthe s ubs t ance found i n t he hous e w as m ar ij uana, the governm entr es t ed i t s cas e. M r . M ar quez- M adr i d t es t i fi ed i n hi s defe ns e thathe w as a fa r m erfr om M e x ico . H e w a s a sk e d b yC a rlo s R a sc o n to p ick u p a c a r f ro m Ju a n L ujan o in T u lsa a n d d riv e it b a c k to M e x ico . M r. L ujan o p ick e d u p M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid fr om t he bus s t at i on ear l yi n t he af t ernoon, theyat e, dr ove ar ound the ci ty , then w entt o t he hous e, w her e theydr ank s om e bee r . M r . M ar quez- M adr i d t es t i fi ed t hathe di d notknow t her e w er e drugs i n the hous e and he di d nots ee the m ar ij uana. H e s aw t he guns , beca us e M r . L uj ano w as s how i ng t hem off, and he-5-

to u c h e d th e m . W h e n th e o ffice rs k n o c k e d , M r. L ujan o to ld M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid t o gett he guns outof ther e, and s o he t ook them and t hr ew them out i n the backy ar d. H e di d notunder s t and w hatthe off i cer s i n the bac k y ar d w er e s ay i ng t o hi m , as he di d nots peak Engl i s h. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, he admi t t ed thathe had notpr evi ous l yt ol d offi cer s part s of the s t orythathe r el at ed on the s t and, a n d h e t e s t i fi e d t h a th e d i d n o ts me l l th e ma r ij u a n a i n th e h o u s e . On r edi r ect - exami nat i on, he t es t i fi ed thathe s pentm os tof hi s t i m e atthe hous e i n t he l i v i n g r o o m a n d h e d i d n o ta s k M r . Lu j a n o i f h e c o u l d l o o k i n th e o th e rr o o ms b e c a u s e it w o u ld h a v e b e e n ru d e . O ffi cerK hal i l t es t i fi ed thathe s poke Spani s h and he que s t i oned M r . L uj ano, w ho t ol d the off i certhathe had be en l i vi ng atthe hous e forei ght d a y s b e c a u se h e w a s h ire d to p ro tec t th e m a riju a n a . M r. L ujan o a lso to ld O ffi cerK hal i l t hatM r . M ar quez- M adr i d had arr i ved onl ythatdayand thathe w as t her e t o pi ck up a c arand dr i ve i tt o M exi co. O ffi cerK hal i l fur thert es t i fi ed that w hen he i nt ervi ew ed M r . M ar quez- M adr i d, the defendantneverm ent i oned C ar l os R as con, buts ai d t hathe w as hi r ed t o pi ck up the ca rbyJ uan Luj ano, w hom he m e t th ro u g h M r. L ujan o ’s g irlfr ien d . O n re d ire c t-e x a m in a tio n , O ffice r K h a lil a d m itt e d th a t M r. L ujan o h a d n o t sa id a n yth in g to im p lica te M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid i n deal i ng m ar ij uana. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed M r . M ar quez- M adr i d’ s m ot i on foracqui t t al on bot h count s of the i ndi ctm ent . T he j uryfound hi m gui l tyon both count s , and the-6-

di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d hi m t o cons ecut i ve s ent ence s of 63 m onths of im p riso n m e n t o n C o u n t O n e a n d 6 0 m o n th s o n C o u n t T w o . M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n fo r a c q u itt a l. II . T h e sta n d a rd fo r re v iew in g a d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r a c q u itt a l is w el l - es t abl i s hed: “w e r evi ew t he r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne w hether , vi ew i ng the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the g o v ern m en t, a re aso n ab le j u ry c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” Un itedS ta tes v . Ha rr is , 369 F. 3d 1157, 1163 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “I n conduct i ng ouri nqui ry , w e do notw ei gh confl i ct i ng evi dence nor cons i dert he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D elgado- Ur i be , 363 F. 3d 1077, 1081 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . “I ns t ead, w e musts i m pl ydet erm i ne w hetherthe evi dence , i f bel i eved, w oul d es t abl i s h eac h el ementof the cr i m e. ” Id. ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . B eca us e M r . M ar quez- M adr i d pr es ent ed hi s cas e af t er m ovi ng foracqui t t al , w e r evi ew the ent i r e r ecor d on appea l , notonl ythe g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e . Id. at1082. 2 1 U.S .C . §§ 8 4 1 (a)(1) & ( b)(1)( B)( v ii) T her e ar e thr ee e l ement s t he governm entm us tes t abl i s h t o obt ai n a c o n v ictio n fo r p o ss e ss in g a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he fi r s tel ementi s thatthe def endant pos s es s ed a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance ; the s econd i s thatthe defendantknew he-7-

p o ss e ss e d th e c o n tro lled su b sta n c e ; an d th e th ird is th a t h e in ten d e d to d istrib u te th e c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . Ha rr is , 369 F. 3d at1163. “Pos s es s i on m aybe ac tual or cons t ruct i ve. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “To prove cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, the G overnm entm us ts how t hatD efe ndantknow i ngl yhel d ow ner s hi p, dom i ni on or contr ol overt he obj ectand pr emi s es w her e the contr aband w as found. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W her e the l ocat i on of the nar cot i cs i s j oi nt l yoccupi ed, “the g o v e r n me n tmu s tp r e s e n td i r e c to rc i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s h o w s o me connec t i on ornexus i ndi vi dual l yl i nki ng t he defendantt o the contr aband. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Valadez - G al l egos , 1 6 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T her e mustbe “s om e evi dence s uppor t i ng atl eas ta pl aus i bl e i nfer ence thatthe defe ndanthad know l edge of and ac ces s t o the contr aband. ” Id. ( al t er at i on and q u o tat ion o m itted). M r . M ar quez- M adr i d ar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence thathe pos s es s ed the mar ij uana be caus e he di d notknow aboutthe mar ij uana a nd he had no do m i nion or con t rol ov er the h ou se. M r. M arquez-M adri d’s ar gu m ents , h o w e v e r, r e s t o n th e a s s u m p tio n th a t th e ju ry sh o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d h is te s tim o n y . T h e ju ry w a s n o t o b lig a te d to d o s o . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Tri ana , 477 F. 3d 1189, 1 1 9 5 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 9 2 8 (20 0 7 ). T h e thre e p o li ce o fficers t es t i fi ed t o t he extr emel ys t r ong odorof m ar ij uana thati m m edi at el ys truck them fro m the o p en d o o rw ay s o f th e h o u se. S erg ea n t L ark in testi fied that m o re th a n 2 2 0 p o u n d s o f

m a riju a n a w a s lo c a ted in a n e a silya c c e ss ib le b e d ro o m w ith-8-

i t s dooropen t o t he hal l w ay . A r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatan occ upant of the hous e knew of the pr es ence of l ar ge amount s of m ar ij uana a nd that M r. M arq u ez -M ad ri d h ad ac ce ss to the m arij u an a. W e “ ac ce p t th e jury ’s re s o lu tio n o f

th e e v id e n c e a s lo n g a s it is w ith in th e b o u n d s o f re a s o n .” See Uni t ed Stat es v. C uiQ i n Zhang , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 2 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 1 6 5 (2 0 0 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). M r . M ar quez- M adr i d al s o cont ends thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence of h is ( as d ist ing u ishe d fro m M r. L ujano ’s or o thers’) inten t t o d istri b u te. T h is co u rt has hel d t hat“a j ur ym ayi nferi nt entt o di s tr i but e fr om the pos s es s i on of l ar ge quant i t i es of drugs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P ul i do- Jacobo , 377 F. 3d 1124, 1131 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . Fur t her , t he off i cer s t es t i fi ed thatthe ci r cumst ance s – i ncl udi ng t he amountof m ar ij uana, t he i ndi ci a of a “s t as h hous e, ” and the pac kagi ng s uppl i es – w er e cons i s t entw i t h di s tr i but i on. M r . M ar quez- M adr i d’ s cont ent i ons a g a in a s s u m e th a t th e ju ry w a s re q u ir e d to b e lie v e h is te s tim o n y , b u t it w a s n o t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r a c q u itta l o n C o u n t O n e . 18 U. S. C . § 924(

c) (1) T h ere are also three elem en ts th at th e g o v ern m en t m u st establish to su p p o rt a convi ct i on forus i ng orcarr y i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) . T he fi r s tel ementi s that t he defendantcomm i t t ed a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e; the s econd i s thatthe defendant know i ngl y“us ed” or“ca r r i ed” a fi r earm ; and the thi r d i s thatthe fi r earm w asSect i on 924( c) ( 1) al s o addr es s es t he pos s es s i on of a f i r earm “i n fur ther ance 1 o f” a c rim e o f

v io len c e o r d ru g -tra ffick in g c rim e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ch o se to pr os ecut e M r . M ar quez- M adr i d onl yunder§ 924( c) ( 1) ’ s “us e orcarry ” pr ong, not t he “pos s es s i on” pr ong. -9- “us ed” or “ca r r i ed” “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o” the drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. See 1 Uni t ed Stat es v. McK is s i ck , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). M r . M ar quez- M adr i d fi r s tar gues t hatt her e i s no evi dence of the “us e” or “ca r r y i ng” of the fi r earm s t o s at i s fyt he s econd e l ement . W e nee d notcons i der hi s ar gum entaboutw hetherhe “us ed” the fi r earm s , beca us e ther e i s s uffi ci ent e v id e n c e th a t h e “ c a rr ie d ” th e fir e a rm s . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . P o w e ll , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 9 2 n .4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ [ A ] c rim e d e n o u n c e d in th e sta tu te di sj unct i vel ym aybe al l eged i n an i ndi ctm enti n the conj unct i ve, and ther eaf t er p r o v e n i n t h e d i sj u n c t i v e . ” ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . “ C o n v i c t i o n u n d e rt h e ‘ c a rry’ p ro n g o f

§ 9 2 4 (c ) re q u ire s p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm th ro u g h d o m in io n a n d c o n tro l, and tr ans por t at i on orm ovementof the w eapon. ” Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Br o wn , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid admi t t ed thathe handl ed the fi r earm s i n the hous e, and w hen the pol i ce knoc ked on t he doorand M r . L uj ano t ol d hi m t o getr i d of the guns , he pi cked them up, t ook t hem out s i de, and thr ew t hem i n the y ar d. T hi s evi dence s how s dom i ni on, c o n tro l, an d tra n sp o rta tio n , an d th u s s u p p o rts a fin d in g th a t M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid

“ c a rrie d ” th e fire a rm s a s re q u ire d b y§ 9 2 4 (c )(1 )’s se c o n d e lem e n t.-10-

M r . M a r q u e z - M a d r i d a l s o c o n t e n d s th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e fi r e a r ms w er e us ed orcarr i ed “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e” t o s at i s fy t he thi r d el ement . H e poi nt s outthatno drug t r ans act i ons occurr ed w hi l e he w as i n t he hous e and thatt her e w as no evi dence he “w as pr ot ect i ng the mar ij uana, pl anned t o conductt r ans act i ons w i th the mar ij uana, oreven kne w aboutthe m ar ij uana. ” A pl t . B r . at28. I n Sm i th v. Uni t ed Stat es , 508 U . S. 223, 237- 38 (1 9 9 3 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t alth o u g h “ in re latio n to ” is e x p a n siv e , it re q u ire s a t a m in im u m th a t “th e fire a rm m u st h a v e so m e p u rp o se o r e ffe c t w ith r es pectt o t he drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e; i t s pr es ence ori nvol vementcannotbe the r es ul tof ac ci dentorcoi nci dence . ” Thi s cour thas hel d that“a f i r earm i s carr i ed d u rin g a n d in re latio n to th e u n d e rly in g c rim e w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t av a ils h im se lf of the w eapon a nd t he w eapon pl ay s an i nt egr al r ol e i n the under l y i ng offe ns e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B anks , 451 F. 3d 721, 726 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i ons and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . “Thi s s t andar d r equi r es the governm entt o pr ove a di r ect nexus betw een the defendant ’ s carry i ng of a f i r earm and the under l y i ng drug cr i m e. Fort hi s nexus t o be es t abl i s hed, evi dence m us tdemonstr at e thatthe defe ndanti nt ended the fi r earm t o be ava i l abl e forus e i n the offens e. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h e e v id e n c e w a s s u fficie n t to su p p o rt a fin d in g th a t M r. M a rq u e z -M a d rid carr i ed the guns “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. ” The u n d e rly in g c rim e w a s p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te, w h ich c o n tin u e d u n til-11-

M r . M ar quez- M adr i d no l ongerhad pos s es s i on of the nar cot i cs . T hus , i ti s not d e te rm in a tiv e th a t n o p a rt ic u la r r e ta il d ru g tr a n s a c tio n o c c u rr e d th a t n ig h t. See Br o wn , 400 F. 3d at1249- 50 ( hol di ng t hatw her e defendantw as engage d i n a cont i nui ng and ongoi ng m ethamphet ami ne manufactur i ng oper at i on, the ques t i on befor e the courtw as “w hethert he fi r earm w as s uffi ci ent l yconnec t ed t o the

‘ cont i nui ng offe ns e’ as a w hol e”) . T he j uryw as ent i t l ed t o concl ude thatthe guns w e re p re se n t in th e h o u se fo r th e p ro tec tio n o f th e m a riju a n a ; O ffice r K h a lil tes tifie d a b o u t M r. L ujan o ’s s tate m e n ts to th a t effe c t, an d S e rg e a n t L a rk in te s tifie d th a t g u n s c o m m o n ly ar e u s e d to p ro te c t d ru g s h ip m e n ts . See als o Uni t ed S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 9 2 3 F . 2 d 1 3 9 7 , 1 4 0 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (“[T ]he firearm s w ere entw i ned w i t h t he drug oper at i on. T he s ucce s s of s uch a r et ai l di s tr i but i on oper at i on i s pr edi cat ed upon a s t eadyfl ow of cus t om er s m aki ng pur chas es . T he v isi b le pre sen ce o f fir ea rm s is a m ea n s o f e n su ri n g that n o n e o f th ese cu stom ers at t empt s a r obbery . ”) . U nl i ke i n Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Ma t th e ws , 942 F. 2d 779, 783 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) , i n t hi s cas e ther e w as evi dence thatM r . M ar quez- M adr i d avai l ed hi m s el f of the fi r earm s . B yhi s ow n admi s s i on, w hen the off i cer s knocked a nd announce d t hei rpr es ence , M r . M ar quez- M adr i d pi cked up the guns , t ook them o u tsid e , an d tried to g e t rid o f th e m b yto ss in g th e m in to th e b a c k y a rd . A s w ith C ountO ne, t he j ur yw as ent i t l ed t o di s bel i eve M r . M ar quez- M adr i d’ s t es t i m ony a n d d ra w its o w n in fe re n c e s f ro m th e e v id e n c e . T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r a c q u itta l o n C o u n t T w o .-12- III . W e mustdecl i ne M r . M ar quez- M adr i d’ s i nvi t at i ons t o r e- w ei gh t he cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es and r econs i derthe i nfer ence s the j urygl eane d fr om t h e e v i d e n c e . T h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge