FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 16, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15141 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 1 5 1 - C R - T - 3 0 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D O U G L A S N E L S O N - M A R T I N E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 16, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ougl a s N e l s on- M a r t i ne z appe a l s the s e nt e nc e he r e c e i ve d a f t e rbe i ngOn appe al, Nelson-Ma rtinez attempts to adopt his codefenda nts’ briefs that have be en 1 filed in separate a

ppellate c ases. Hefailed, how ever , to separately move to be per

mitted to adopt the brief s and describe in detail the portions of the brief s that he desire s to adopt. There fore , we do not consider him to have adopted any portion of his codef

endants’ briefs. See11 th C ir . R. 28 -1 (f ) (re quiring“ a

statement de sc ribingin de tail which b ri e fsand whic h p or

tio ns of tho se brie fsarea dopte d” ); United States v. Bichse l , 156 F.3d 1148, 1150 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holdingthat defendants may not adopt and re ly

on briefs of

another caseunless they separately move for adoption and the motion is gra nted). 2 c o n v i c t e d o f

( 1 ) c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e a tl e a s t5 k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a in e w h ile o n b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) a nd 46 U . S . C . § 70506( a ) a nd ( b) , a nd ( 2) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a tl e a s t5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne w hi l e onboa r d a ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2, 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ), and 4 6 U . S . C . § 7 05 03 (a )( 1). H i s a gg re gat e s ent ence of 87 m onths ’ i nc a r c e r a t i on, f ol l ow e d by 5 y e a r s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , w a s a tthe l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r ange. O n app ea l , N el son-M art i nez a rgues thatthe di stri ct c o u r ti m p r o p e r l y ap p l i e d th e Gu i d e l i n e s b y e n h a n c i n g h i s o f f e n s e l e v e l b y two l e ve l s pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) f orpos s e s s i on of

a da nge r ous w e apon. 1 I. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s de novo, but a c c e p t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s u n le s s th e y a r e c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . U ni t ed S ta tes v. C ra w

f o rd , 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 77 -78 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A di s tr i c tc our tm us tc orr e c t l y appl y the G ui de l i ne s t o c a l c ul a t e the3

G u id e lin e r a n g e . C ra w

f o rd , 407 F . 3d a t1179. I n appl y i ng the G ui de l i ne s , the c o u r tma y r e l y u p o n th e f a c tu a l s t a t e me n t s c o n c e rn i n g r e l e v a n tc o n d u c ti n th e PSI u n le s s th e d e f

e n d a n t o b

je c ts to th o s e s ta te m e n ts . U ni te d State s v . She l ton , 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W hi l e e xpl i c i tf i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd de t e r m i na t i ons a r e pr e f

e rr e d, a c our t ’ s f

a i l ur e t o m a ke s uc h f

i ndi ngs a nd d eter m in atio n s d o es n o t req u ire r em an d , i f th e r ec o rd clea rly s u p p o rts th e c o u rt’s im p lic it d e te r m in a tio n . U ni t e d State s v . V

i l lar i no , 930 F . 2d 1527, 1528- 29 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). U n d e rth e G u id e lin e s , if a d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e s a d a n g e r o u s w e ap o n in r e l a t i o n t o a d ru g o f

f e n s e , h i s o f

f e n s e l e v e l i s i n c r e a s e d b y 2 l e v e l s . U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T he c om m e nt a ry i ns truc t s tha tthe w e apon e nha nc e m e nts houl d be appl i e d i f

a w e apon w a s pr e s e nt , unl e s s i tw a s c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w a s c o n n e c te d w ith th e o f f e n s e . I d. cm t . n. 3. T he com m ent ary s t at es thatan un l oaded h un t i ng ri fl e i n a re si dent i al cl osetw ou l d b e a n exam pl e of c l ea r im p r o b ab ility . I

d. T he go vernm entbear s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng the exi st ence o f th e w e ap o n a n d its p r o x im ity to th e s ite o f th e o f f e n s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . H

a ll , 4 6 F .3 d 6 2 , 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . O n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t m e e ts its bur de n, the bur de n s hi f

t s t o the de f

e nda ntt o “ s how tha ta c onne c t i on be tw e e n the fi re arm and the offens e i s c l ea rl y i m prob abl e. ” I d.4

E ve n i f a c o- c ons pi r a t orw a s the a c tua l pos s e s s orof the w e apon, the w e apon e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) m a y ap p ly . U ni ted Stat es v. Stan l ey , 24 F . 3d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 2 -2 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). If th e e n h an ce m en t i s b as ed o n a c o -c o n sp irato r’s pos s e s s i on, the gove rnm e ntm us te s t abl i s h tha tthe c ons pi r a t orw a s c ha r ge d a nd pos s e s s e d the w e apon i n f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y , a nd tha tthe de f e nda nt w h o s e o f f e n s e l e v e l i s b e i n g e n h a n c e d w a s a me mb e ro f th e c o n s p i r a c y a tth e t i me o f th e p o s s e s s io n . I

d. F ur the r m or e , w e he l d i n U n ite d S ta te s v . P e s s e

fa ll , 27 F . 3d 511, 515 ( 11th C i r . 1994) , tha ti tw a s r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e tha tac o- c ons pi r a t or w oul d us e a w e apon t o pr ot e c tc oc a i ne dur i ng unl oa di ng. H avi ng re vi ew ed the re cord and the bri ef s of the part i es , w e di sc ern n o err or. B ec ause N el son-M art i nez j oi ned the conspi ra cy kn ow i ng thatw eapo ns w er e on bo ar d the vess el and thatcoca i ne w as bei ng tra nspo rt ed, the di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y i nc r e a s e d hi s of f e ns e l e ve l by tw o l e ve l s unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) f or p o ss es sio n o f a d an g er o u s w ea p o n . A cc o rd in g ly, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s s e n te n c e . A FFI R M ED