[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 48 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-0 00 59 -J ES-SPC -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN CARLOS VEGA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Decem be r 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 7Ju anVegaap pe al s h is 51 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to si x c ou nt s o f di st rib ut io n o f a qua nt it y of c oc ai ne an d o ne co un t o f po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te a qu an ti ty of co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) . On ap pe al , Vegaarg ue s t he di stric t co urt (1 ) m is ap pl ie d the U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fi rearm en ha nc em en t, (2 ) m is ap pl ie d t he U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 2) pre m is es en ha nc em en t, an d (3 ) im po se d asubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le sen te nc e. After rev ie w, we affi rm

Vega ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d fo r 1 th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng a cl eri cal erro r inth e wri tt enjud gm en t. I. Veg a co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin im po si ng th e fi rearm

en ha nc em en t be cau se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th e fi rearm ha d a ny con ne ct io n t o t he dru g a ct iv it y . W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ), an d we r ev ie w de no vo th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s t o tho se fact s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph am , 46 3 F .3d12 39 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Sect io n 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) pr ov id es th atth e o ffen se lev el fora drug off en se is in crea se d b y

two lev el s “ [i]f a d an ge ro us weap on (in cl ud in g afir earm ) was Veg a also c ontends the district court incor rec tly assessed c riminal-history points for 1 two of Ve g a’s prior convictions under Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.13, be cause that statute is fac ially unconstitutional. The case s upon which Ve g a re lies to establish that § 893.13 is facially unconstitutional have since be en re verse d. Reg ardle ss, the district court is ordinarily not permitted to assess the c onstitut ionality of a pr evious conviction duringa sente ncinghearing. See U nited States v. Cooper , 203 F.3d 1279, 1287 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 2 Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 7po ss es se d.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ). The Gu id el in es in st ru ctth e d is tri ctco urt t o

ap pl y th e en ha nc em en t “ if t he weap on was p res en t, u nl es s i t i s cl earl y im pr ob ab le th atth e weap on was c on ne ct edwith t he off en se .” Id. , cmt. n .3. The go ve rn m en t ha s t he 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, in te r a li a , th at th e fi rearm

was p res en t atth e si te of t he ch arg edco nduc t. Uni te d Sta tes v. St al li ng s , 46 3 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). If th e g ov ern m en t m eet s i ts bu rd en , th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e d efen dantto pro ve th ata co nn ect io n b etweenth e weap on an d t he off

en se is “ cl earl y

im pr ob ab le .” Id. “ [T]he m ere f actth ata drug of fen de r po ss es se s a f

ire arm do es no t n eces sa ril y

gi ve ris e to th e fi rearm s en ha nc em en t. The go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w so m e n ex us be y on d m ere p os se ss io n be twee n the fir earm s an d t he dru g c rime.” Id. at12 21 . The di stric t co urt d idno t err by app lying th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t p ur su an t to § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). The fi rearm ’s lo cat io n i n asaf e wit h d ru g p arap he rn al iaan d i n a ro om with m or e th an40 gra m s o f co cai ne est ab li sh es a “ ne xu s b ey on d m ere po ss es si on .” Se e Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3dat 1 22 1. Mo reo ve r, Veg a d idno t p ro ve th at a co nn ect io n b etween th e weap on an d t he off en se was “ cl earl y

im pr ob ab le ,” as th e fir earm was p res en t o n t he da te Vegawas a rres te d, was in pro xi m it y to sev eral

3 Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 3 of 7drug -rel at edob jects an d c oc ai ne , andwas l oc at edin th e h ou se wher e p rev io us drug trans act io ns ha d o ccu rred . 2 II. Veg a arg ue s t he di stric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g t he two -le ve l p rem is es en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2) . Becau se Vegadi d n otrai se th is is su e be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba co n , 59 8 F .3d77 2, 7 77 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). To es tabl is h p la inerro r, th e d efen da ntm us t sh ow (1 ) anerro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Id. “ An erro r is pl ai n i f itis ob vi ou s an d c le ar u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Id. (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Sect io n 2 D1.1 (b )(1 2) of t he Gui de li ne s ad ds a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t“ [i]f th e d efen da ntm ai nt ai ne d apre m is es forth e p ur po se of m anuf

actur in g o r di st rib ut in g aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e,” i nc lu di ng “ st or ag e o f a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e fo r th e p ur

po se of d is tri bu ti on .” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 2) & cm t. n .28 . W e h av e no t yet in te rp ret ed§ 2 D1.1 (b )(1 2) , andth ere i s n o S up rem e Co urt p rece de nton th e is su e.

Veg a’s a

rgument that the burde n should not have shifted to him to show the connec tion 2 was “ clea rly improbable” fails. As Ve g a ac knowledg es, wehave long provided for

this shifti ng burden. See Stallings , 463 F.3d at 1220. 4

Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 4 of 7The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err by app lying th e two -le ve l en ha nc em en t

pu rs ua ntto § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 2) be cau se Vegaso ldco cai ne ou t o f hi s h om e o n m ul ti pl e oc cas io ns . Even ass um in g ar gu en do th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t was erro r, an y erro r was no t p la in , as n o b in di ng pre ced en t es tabl is he d t ha t t he co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t o n s uc h fa ct s was erro ne ou s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ag ui ll ar d , 21 7 F .3d13 19 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ [W] he re n ei th er the Supr em e Co urt n orth is Co urt h as ev er re so lv edanis su e . . . th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r in reg ardto th atis su e.”). III. Veg a co nt en ds hi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ba se d o n h is ag e an d t he factth athe ha s n ev er s pe nta si gn ifi can t am ou ntof t im e in carc erat ed . He no te s t ha t l aw en fo rcem en t i ni ti at edeach of t he dru g p ur ch as es , inin crea si ng am ou nt s, wh ic h i nc reas edth e dru g qua nt it y an d s ig ni fic an tl y

affe ct edhi s Gui de li ne s ra ng e. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f se nt en ces un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . Once we de te rm in e a s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly sou nd , we exa m in e whe th er o r no t t he se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Id. The p art y

who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis 5 Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 5 of 7un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v.

To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Veg a fai ls to de m on st rat e h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t of th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly con si de redth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d d is cu ss edVega ’s arg um en ts , andsen te nc edVegato a te rm atth e lo w endof t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 74 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) (no ti ng we or di na ril y ex pe ctsen te nc es withi n the Gui de li ne s ran ge to be reas on ab le ). The d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto va ry do wnwar d b ecau se , de sp it e h av in g s ev eral co nv ic ti on s wh ic h d idno t re su ltin jail ti m e, Veg a co nt in ue d t o “ se ll [] all t he co cai ne th e ag en ts co ul d b uy.” Vega’s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . IV. The Gov ern m en t co nc ed es th is cas e sh ou ldbe rem an de d t o a ll ow t he di st ric t co urt t o c orrecta cl eri cal erro r in th e jud gm en t re ga rd in g t he de sc rip ti on of Veg a’s co nv ic ti on as t o C ou nt7. The in di ctm en t ch arg edVegawith s ix co un ts of di st rib ut io n a ndon e co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . Vega p le d g ui lt y to th os e ch arg es , bu t t he writ te n ju dg m en t was reco rd edforsev enco un ts of di st rib ut io n. We rem an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e cl eri cal erro r in th e wri tt enjud gm en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. J ames , 64 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 6 Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 6 of 720 11 ) (“ W e m ay rem an d wi th in st ru ct io ns to co rrec t a c le ric al erro r inth e jud gm en t.”) . AFFIRMED I N PART, REMANDED IN PART.

7 Case: 12-10482 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 7 of 7