FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 10, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 21-2010

VICTOR BENJAMIN SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

(D.C. No. 1:19-CR-2612-WJ-1)

 

Todd B. Hotchkiss, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant.

Emil J. Kiehne, Assistant United States Attorney (Fred J. Federici, Acting United

States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for PlaintiffAppellee.

 

Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

 

Defendant Victor Sanchez entered a blind plea to being a felon in possession

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court varied

downward from Defendant’s advisory guideline range of 110 to 120 months and

sentenced him to 96 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (setting a

Appellate Case: 21-2010 Document: 010110629357 Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Page: 1
maximum sentence of ten-years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g)(1) violation). Before

the district court, Defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of his base

offense level for the purpose of determining his advisory guideline range. In

particular, Defendant challenged the court’s decision to increase his base offense

level by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018). Subsection

(b)(6)(B) provides in relevant part that a district court should increase a defendant’s

base offense level by four levels if the defendant “[1] possessed any firearm or

ammunition [2] in connection with [3] another felony offense.” On appeal,

Defendant renews his objection to the district court’s four-level increase.

1 Our

jurisdiction arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2). We affirm.

Defendant posed no objection to the historical facts of this case as stated in the

presentence report. Around 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2019, New Mexico State Police

Officers from the Auto Theft Suppression Unit observed an adult male, later

identified as Defendant, driving a stolen Hyundai sedan in Albuquerque. The

officers followed the Hyundai to a Chevron gas station where it stopped. Defendant

got out of the vehicle and went into the station’s store. A passenger, who later

claimed he was just hitching a ride, remained in the vehicle. When Defendant exited

the store, officers announced themselves. As Defendant fled on foot into a

1 Although the district court varied downward from the calculated guideline

range, the Government does not argue that any error in the court’s calculation of the

range was harmless. See United States v. Joe, 696 F.3d 1066, 1073 (10th Cir. 2012).

2

Appellate Case: 21-2010 Document: 010110629357 Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Page: 2
residential area, officers observed him reach into his waistband while ignoring their

commands to stop and get on the ground. A firearm fell from Defendant’s

waistband. Officers apprehended Defendant a short distance later. The firearm that

fell from Defendant’s waist was identified as a .40 caliber pistol with an obliterated

serial number. The firearm was loaded with one round in the chamber and a

magazine containing 13-rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. Officers subsequently

discovered the Hyundai’s ignition had been popped out.

Defendant acknowledges he possessed the loaded firearm while driving

the stolen Hyundai. Aplt’s Op. Br. at 17. This satisfies the first requirement of

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Defendant further acknowledges his unlawful possession

of the stolen vehicle constitutes a felony offense under New Mexico law. N.M. Stat.

Ann. § 30-16D-4 (1978); see State v. Bernard, 355 P.3d 831, 837 (N.M. Ct. App.

2015) (crime of possessing a stolen vehicle is a “separate and distinct offense”

under § 30-16D-4(A)). This satisfies the third requirement of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

Defendant’s sole claim both here and in the district court pertains to the subsection’s

second requirement. Defendant says his possession of the firearm was not “in

connection with” his possession of the stolen vehicle. The district court said

otherwise and found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s possession

of the firearm had the potential to facilitate his possession of the stolen vehicle by

emboldening him to maintain that possession if confronted by law enforcement or

the rightful owner. Our review of this finding is for clear error. See United States

3

Appellate Case: 21-2010 Document: 010110629357 Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Page: 3
v. Walters, 269 F.3d 1207, 1219 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding “the district court did not

clearly err when it concluded that the gun had the potential to facilitate [defendant’s]

unlawful possession of [the victim’s] stolen truck”).

In support of his claim, Defendant argues the district court’s finding that his

“mere possession” of the firearm had the potential to facilitate his possession of the

stolen vehicle is insufficient to establish that his possession of the firearm was “in

connection with” his possession of the stolen vehicle. Aplt’s Op. Br. at 15.

According to Defendant, “[t]here was no evidence [he] possessed the firearm to

protect his possession of the stolen car and thus there was no evidence of ‘in

connection with’ in this case.” Id. at 18. In this Circuit, however, we have long

interpreted “in connection with” as used in subsection (b)(6)(B) (or its predecessor

prior to amendment, subsection (b)(5)), as requiring the Government to show by a

preponderance of the evidence that the firearm facilitated or had the potential to

facilitate, i.e., make easier, another felony offense. E.g., United States v. Bunner,

134 F.3d 1000, 1005–06 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Constantine, 263

F.3d 1122, 1125–26 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2001); Walters, 269 F.3d at 1218–19; United

States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206, 1226 (10th Cir. 2011). We have viewed our

interpretation as consistent with Application Note 14(A) to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) which

provides that the subsection applies if the firearm “facilitated, or had the potential

of facilitating, another felony offense.” E.g., United States v. Justice, 679 F.3d

1251, 1254–55 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Marrufo, 661 F.3d 1204, 1206–07

4

Appellate Case: 21-2010 Document: 010110629357 Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Page: 4
(10th Cir. 2011).

Driving a stolen vehicle with a popped out ignition, as Defendant did in this

case, could very well have increased his concern that law enforcement, the rightful

owner, or another would recognize the vehicle was stolen. The district court could

properly infer that the loaded firearm emboldened Defendant to accept this enhanced

risk and maintain possession of the vehicle. In other words, based on the undisputed

facts, the district court’s finding that Defendant could have carried the gun to

intimidate anyone who sought to interfere with his possession of the vehicle is not

clearly erroneous. All § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) requires under our precedents is that

Defendant’s possession of the firearm had the potential to facilitate his possession

of the stolen vehicle. The district court was well within its authority to find it did.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

5

Appellate Case: 21-2010 Document: 010110629357 Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Page: 5