## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 4235 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OHN O R OZ CO, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C R 1164

—Jo an H umph reyL efk ow, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 13, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d R O V NE R an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . F e d e r a l a g e n t s a r r e s t e d J o hn Orozc o a ft e r the y s e a r c he d hi s ho me pu r s ua nt t o a w arrantand f ound a gun and a dig i talsca l e with tr ace am ounts ofc ocai ne. The go ver nm ent c harg ed Oroz co w i th poss ess i ng a fi re ar m afterhavin g b een c onvi cted o f a fel ony and conspi ring to di str ibute m or e than fi ve k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a i n e a n d ma r ij u a n a . Aft e r a j u r y c o n-2 N o. 06

- 4235 vi cted hi m o n both counts, the dis tr i ct j ud ge sente nced Or o zc o t o 3 60 months i n pr i so n. Or o zc o a ppea l s hi s co nv i ct i o ns a nd s en te nc e, a r g ui ng that the e vi dence ob tai ned i n the sea rch shou l d have b ee n su p p re ss ed , th at th e d ist ric t jud ge im p ro p er ly ad m itted evid en ce r elating to O rozco’s p rio r firearm convi cti on, and that the j ud ge shoul d n ot h ave appli ed a t w o-lev el s entencing g uidel i nes e nhancem ent forposses si ng a fi re ar m in co nnecti on with a drugo ffense. W e fi nd no mer i t i n a ny o fOr o zc o ’ s ch al lenges a nd affi rm hi s co nvi cti ons and sentence

.
I . B a c kg r o und I n De ce m be r 2 00 2 fede r ala g en ts a ppl i ed f o r a war r an t to se ar ch Oroz co’ s r esi dence nearA uror a, I l l i noi s, f or r e c ord s relati ng to narcot ics transa ctions and m em bersh i p l i st s f o r the Latin K in g s g an g . F BIS pec i alAge nt Ken Bur r es s su bmi tt ed an a ff i dav i t i n s uppo r t o fthe w ar ra n t, w h ich st at ed t h at : (1) relia b le ga n g s ou rc es to ld Bur r es s th atOr o zc o was the s ec o nd- i n- co m m an d o fthe A uror a Latin K i ngs g ang a nd deal t in l ar ge quan tit ies of cocaine an d m arij ua na ; ( 2) several g a n g m em bers adm i tte d pu rchas i ng drugs fro m Oro zco ; and ( 3) Burre ss k ne w from h i s te n y ea r s o fe xpe r i en ce i n n ar co ti cs i nv e s t i g a t i o ns tha th i g h- r a nk i ng g a ngme mbe r s o ft e n k e pt d etailed record s of d rug tran sact ions an d gang m e m b ersh ip lis t s i n t h eir h om es . B as ed on th is in for m at ion, a m agi str ate j ud ge i ssued the sea rch w ar ra nt. Feder al age nts executed the w ar ra nt and f ound a Bere tta ha ndg un, a b ox ofa m m uni ti o n, a maga zine , t wo gunN o. 06

- 4235 3 ho l st er s, a nd a di g i ta l sc al e wi th tr ac e amoun ts o fc o ca i ne i n Oroz c o’s hom e. Oro zco was subsequentl y a rr est ed and charg ed w i th poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 1) a nd c o ns pi r acy t o di st r ibut e co ca i ne a nd ma r ij ua na i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 6 a nd 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2. Or o zc o m o ve d to qua sh th e se ar ch war r an t and supp re ss the e vi dence f ound at hi s ho m e, claim in g that no probable c au se exi ste d fo r the s ear ch. The di str i ct cour t a gr eed thatthe w ar ra nt was not supp or ted by p ro b ab le c au se , bu t p er m itt ed th e a d m iss ion of th e e vid en ce at trial bec au se th e cou rt foun d t ha t the officers ha d a ct ed i n g o o d f ai th

. A t t ria l O ro zc o a rg u ed th at th e g u n be lon g e d to h is wi fe , n o th i m. F BIS pe c i a l Ag e ntNe a l Or mer o d t e s t i f i ed that he had f ound a gun hol ste r i n O ro zc o’ s cl ose t w h ile s e a r c h in g h is re sid en c e a n d th at a h ols te r is p rim ar ily u se d to ca rry a c on c ea led firea rm . On cr os s-e x am inati on Orm er od st ate d that the hol ste r w as se t up f or a ri ght- hand ed shoo ter
. Defense counselthen ask ed A gent Orm er od w hetherhe kn ew that Oro zco was l efth an d ed ; O r m er od sa id h e d id n ot . Follow in g t h is t es tim ony, the gov er nm ent r equeste d p er m i ssi on t o i ntro
du c e the t e s t i mon y o fAur o r a P o l i c e Offi c e r Da n W oo ds to re but the i m press ion c re ate d by defense counselthat Orozc o coul d not hav e used the hol ste r because he i s l eftha nd ed

. Th e cou rt grante d perm issi on ove r Orozc o’s obj ecti on. Offi cerW oo ds tes tified that in Se ptem ber19 94 he enco untere d Orozco under s uspici ous c i rcum sta nces. A fte r a b rie f e x c h a n g e be tw ee n th e t w o, O ro zc o p u t h is r i g hth a nd u nd e r hi s shi r ta nd g r ab b e d a th i s wa i s tb a nd

. W oo ds or dered Oro zc o to pl ace hi s hands o n a ne arby4 N o. 06

- 4235

ve hi cl e so W o o ds co ul d s ea r ch h im , b utOr o zc o r an . W oo ds gav e chas e a nd sa w Oro zco

—us i nghi s r i g ht ha nd

— re m ov e s om et h in g f r om h is w ais tb an d an d to ss it t o the g r o un d. Aft e r Or o z c o wa s a r r e s t e d, Offi c e r Wo o ds r et r ac ed hi s st eps a nd f o und a fi r ea r m o n the g r o und w here Oro zco had tosse d the i tem he r em ove d fr om hi s w ai stba nd

. Oro zco was char ged and co nvi cted o f unl awfulpos sessi o n o fthe fi r ea r m . Thi s ev i den ce , the go ve rn m en t a rg u e d , sh ow ed th at th e g u n d isc ov er ed in the s ear ch ofOro zco ’ s ho m e be l onged t o th e l eft- hand ed Orozc o eve n though th e hol ste r w as setup f ora ri ghtha nd ed shoote r. The ju ry co nvi cted Oro zco o fbo th char ges , and a j ud ge se nt en ce d hi m t o 3 60 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t on th e conspi ra cy count a nd a concurr ent 1 20 m onths’ i m pri so nm en t o n the fel o n- i n- po ss es si o n count
. In c al cul at i ng Orozc o’ s guidel i nes s entence , the j ud ge i m posed a tw ol ev ele nha nc ementf o r po ss es si o n o fa firea r m i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha dr ugo ffen se . Or o zc o obj ec te d t o the e nha nc ement, c l ai m i ngtha t th er e was no e vi d en ce th athe ha d po ss es se d the g un in c o nne ct i o n wi tha dr ugc o nspi ra cy. The j ud ge hel d that the co nnecti on be tw een th e tw o was a pe r m i ss ibl e i nfer en ce a nd a ppl i ed th e enhancem ent.

I I . Discussi on A. S e a r c h Wa r r a nt W e fi rs t a dd re ss Orozc o’ s cl ai m thatthe evid en ce obt ai ned fr om the sear ch ofhi s ho m e s houl d have be enN o. 06

- 4235 5 supp re sse d. The dis tr i ct j ud ge hel d that wh ile the s ear ch w ar ra n t w as n ot su p p or te d b y pr ob ab le cau se , t h e ev id en ce w as ne v e r th eless ad m issible becau se th e officers ac te d in g oo d fait h

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 4 68 U
. S. 89 7 (1984). B oth pa rties take i ssu e w ith th e d istri c t cou rt’s rul i ng. Oro zc o agree s that no pro babl e ca use e xi ste d fo r th e se ar ch, b ut c lai m s th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n a ppl y i ng the g oo d-f ai th exce pti on t o the e xcl usi onar y r ule

. T he govern m en t con ten d s tha t not only d id th e officers ex ec ut i ngthe s ea r chr ely o n the war ran t ing o o d f ai th, but the di str i ct c ourter re d i n hol ding that the s ear ch w ar ra nt was not supp or ted bypro babl e ca use. Prob able cau se is a p ractical, non tech nical in q u iry th ata sk s whethe r the r e i s a f ai r pr o babi l i ty, g i ve n the t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c ums t a n c e s , th a te v i d e n c e o fa c r i me w ill be fo u n d in a p ar tic u lar p lac e. Il l i nois v. G a tes , 4 62 U. S
. 2 13 , 2 38 ( 19 83 )
. “ W he n, a s he r e, a n a ffi dav i t is the onl y e vi dence pres ented t o a j ud ge to supp or t a se ar ch war r an t, ‘ th e va l i di tyo f th e war r an t r es ts s o l ely o n the str engt h o f the affi davi t. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 40 2 F. 3d 773, 77 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. P eck, 317 F.3d 754 , 7 55-56 (7th Cir. 2003)). The questi on for u s i s w h et h er A ge n t B u rre ss ’s a ffid av it a d eq u at ely e s t ab l i s h e d p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h O r o z c o ’ s h o me f o r n a r c o t i c s a nd g a ng - r e l a t e d e v i de nc e . Ou r s t a nd a r d o f re vi ew r equi re s us to gi ve “gr eatdefer ence” to the deci si on o fthe magi st r at e j udg e who i ss ue d the war r ant a nd no defe re nce to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on that pr obab le c au se w as lac kin g. U nited Sta tes v. M c I ntire, 51 6 F.3d 576 , 578 (7th C ir. 2008).6 N o. 06

- 4235 A gent Bu rr ess ’ s a ffi davi t s tat ed that acco rdi ng to r el i ab l e s our ce s, Or o zc o was the s ec o nd- i n- co m m an d ofthe A uror a Latin K in gs ga ng. In additi on, se ver al coo perat i ng g ang m em ber s tol d Agent Bu rr ess thatOro zco w as a large-scale dru g trafficker and that they had pu rch ased dru gs from Oroz c o i n the rece nt pa st. M oreover, A gent Bu rr ess as ser ted thatin his te n yea rs o fexper i ence, he kne w tha th i g h- r a nk i ngg a ngme mbe r s o ft e n k e pt m em ber shi p l i sts , drug- tr ansact i on re cor ds, and other ev id en c e o f ga n g- a n d d ru g-r ela te d ac tiv i t y in t h eir hom es. Based o n thi s info rm ati on, the m agi str ate j ud ge i ssued the w ar ra nt to se ar ch Oroz co’ s ho m e for “[ l ] edg er s/r ec o r ds r el at ed to na r cot i cs t r an sa ct i o ns , g an g r e l a t e d ind i c i a , p ho t o g r a ph s o fg a ngme mbe r s , l e dger s/ re cor ds re l ate d to gang acti vi ty, i nd icia o fr esi dency an d rea l es ta te d oc u m en ts .” The gov er nm ent concedes that the onl y supp or t fo r a l i n k b et w ee n O ro zc o’s h om e a n d th e s ou gh t-a fte r ev iden ce ofdr ugde al i nga nd g an ga ct i vi tywas Age nt Bu rr ess ’ s be l i ef

— i nfo rm ed by hi s d ec ade ofexper i ence as a nar c ot ics i nvest i gat or

— th atOr o zc o , a s se co nd- i ncom m and ofthe A uror a Latin K i ngs g ang, w oul d keep drug

- a nd g a ng - r e l a t e d e v i de nc e a t hi s ho me. Th e go ver n m en t c laim s t h is is s u fficie n t t o s u p p or t p ro b ab le ca us e an d cites our dec i si o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. La m on f or su ppo r t. 93 0 F
. 2d 11 83 ( 7th Ci r . 19 91 )
. In Lamon , an inform an t to l d po l i ce tha t Lamon r o ut i ne l y s o l d c o ca i ne o ut o fhi s ho us e an d hi s ca r. B ased o n thi s i nf o r m at i o n, pol i ce obtained a warr ant t o searc h L am on’ s r esi dence an d h is c ar an d fou n d co c ain e an d d ru g-p ac ka gin g m at er ials in b ot h p lac es . Id. at 1185
. Du ring the se ar ch, Lam onN o. 06

- 4235 7 to ld offic er s t h at th e h ou se w as on ly h is s ec on d ar y re sidence; hi s pri m ar y re si dence w as about a m i l e a w ay. A fter the s e a r c h po l i c e r e t urne d t o c o ur ta nd r e qu e s t e d a secon d warra nt to se ar ch Lam on’ s pri m ar y r esi dence. A dm i tting tha t the i nfo rm ant had o nl y i denti fi ed Lamon’ s seconda r y r es i den ce a nd hi s ca r a s si te s o fdr ug sa l es , the r eque st i ngo ffi ce r a ss er te d tha t i n h i s “n i ne yea rs o fi nvest i gat i ng drug tr affi cki ng i n t h e M i l w aukee ar ea, ” he kne w tha t dr ugde al er s o fte n k eptdr ugs a nd re c or d s a t t h eir p rim ar y re sid en c e. Id. at 1186
. The st ate c o u r ti s s u e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n to n th i s i n f o r mat i o n . We up hel d the warr ant, st ati ng tha t the speci fi c ev i dence of dru gs in La m on’s sec ond residen ce p lu s the officer’s experien c e r ega rdi ng drug deal er s’ pri m ar y r esi dences supp or ted the i ssui ng co urt’ s probabl e- cause deter m i nati o n. The dis trict j ud ge thought Lamon w as d ist in gu ish ab le f r o m the f ac ts a t i ss ue he r e. I t i s true tha t i n Lamon th e affidav it contain ed m o r e than j us t the officer’s assertio n th at d ru g d ea ler s o f t e n ke p t d ru g e vid en c e in th eir hom es; o ur o pinion al so em phasi zed thatpol i ce had alr ea d y d isc ov er ed d ru gs an d d ru g-p ac ka gin g m at er ials i n La m o n’ s se co nd ary r es i den ce a nd i n h i s ca r . Her e, the l i nk be tw een Or ozc o’ s ho m e an d the g ang a nd nar cot i cs evi dence r est s s ol el y o n A gent Bu rr ess ’ s a sse rt i on that hi g h- r an k i ngg an gmem be r s o fte n k ee p e vi den ce o fg an g a nd dr uga c t i v i t y i n the i r h o mes. T h e dist ri ct j ud ge bel i eve d that the o ffi cer ’ s e xperi ence, witho ut m or e, w as not su ffici en t to sup p ort prob able cau se to search Oroz co’s hom e.8 N o. 06

- 4235 W e di sag re e. I t i s t rue th at A gent Bu rr ess ’ s a sse rt i on abou t the l ikel ihood of locating evid en ce in the hom e of a hi gh- ra nki ng g ang m em berwas not cor robor ate d by i nfo rm ati on s peci fi c to Oro zco’s a cti vi ti es at hi s ho m e. Bu t i t i s wel l est abl i shed as a g ener alm att erthata m agi strate ev al uati ng a w ar ra nt appli cati on i s e nti tl ed to ta ke ano ffi ce r ’ s ex per i en ce i nt o a cc o un t i n de te r m i ni ng w h et h er p ro b ab le c au se ex ist s. Lamon , 9 3 0 F
. 2 d a t1 1 8 9. “W ar r a nt s ma y b e i s s ue d e v e n i n the ab s e nc e o fdi re ct ev id en c e lin kin g c rim in al ob j ec ts to a p ar tic u lar sit e.” Id. at 11 88 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n m ar k s o m i tt ed)

. An is su i ng m agi str ate “i s e n ti tl ed to draw rea sonab l e infe re nces ab o utwher e ev i den ce i s l i k ely t o b e k ept, b as ed o n the na tu r e o fthe e vi den ce a nd the ty pe o foffen se , ” an d sp ec ifica lly, “[i]n th e c as e o f d ru g d ea ler s, ev id en c e is l i kel y t o be found w here the deal er s l i ve. ” Id
. ( i nter nal qu otation m arks om itted ). Or o zc o c i te s th e S i xth Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n in U nited Sta tes v . S ch u ltz , 14 F .3d 10 93 (6t h C ir. 19 94 ), as s u p p or t fo r h is ar gum ent that Burr ess ’ s a ffi davi t was defi ci ent. In that case , an inform ant t ol d the pol i ce that a m an nam ed “Sc hult z” supp l i ed hi m with drug s. P olic e dete rm i ned wher e S ch ul tz l i ve d a nd tha t he ha d pr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns f orposs ess i on o fm ar ij uana. Pol i ce a lso d isco ver ed that Schul tz own ed sev eral safe- deposi t bo xes a t a l oca l bank. Based o n thi s info rm ati on, an o ffi cerappli ed f or a war r an t to s ea r chthe s afe- depo si t bo xe s, asse r ting th at “[b ]as ed on h is t ra in in g a n d ex p er ien c e[,] . .
. it is not uncom m on f or the r eco rds, et c. , o fsuch [ drug] di st r ib ut i o n t o b e ma i nt a i ne d in s a fe de po s i tb o xe s. ” Id. at 1097
. The S ix th Ci rcui t hel d that the affi davi t was i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh pro babl e ca use.N o. 06

- 4235 9 Bu rr ess ’ s a ffi davi t was stro ngerthan the a ffi davi t a t i ssue i n Sc hu ltz
. The a ffi dav i t i n Sc hul tz sai d onl y that i t was “no t uncom m on ,” in the age nt’ s e xperi ence, f or drug deal er s t o kee p re cor ds ofdrug ac tiv ity i n safedeposi t boxes

. H er e, i n contr ast, Bu rr ess sw or e th at h is dec ade o fe xpe r i en ce a s a na r co ti cs i nv es ti g at o r c o nvinc ed hi m tha t be ca us e Or ozc o was a hi g h- r an k i ng g an gmem be r, e vi den ce o fdr ugt r af fi ck i nga nd g an g acti vity “wil l be f ound” i n hi s ho m e. The i ssui ng m agi str at e j udg e was e nt i tl ed t o c r edi t Bur r es s’ s l en g th y e xp er i ence and high degr ee ofco nfi dence thatthe sought

after eviden ce w as very li kely to be f ou nd i n O rozco’s ho m e. Gi ving“ g r ea t defer en ce ” to the d eci si o n o fthe m ag ist ra te j u d ge , M cIn tire, 5 1 6 F
. 3 d at 5 7 8 , we c o nc l ud e that Bu rr ess ’ s a ffi davi t was suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh probabl e ca use t o sea rch Orozc o’ s ho m e. And we r e i t n o t, we wo u l d o th e r wi s e a g r e e wi th t he d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c on c lu sio n th at th e e vid en c e o b ta in ed in the s e a r c h wa s a dmi s s ib l e u nd e r the g o o d- f a i th e xc e pti o n. The fr ui ts o fa sear chb as ed o n a n inv al i d war r an t m ay be a dm i tte d at t ri ali fthe executi ng o ffice r re l i ed on th e in va lid w ar ra n t in goo d fait h

. Le on , 4 6 8 U. S
. a t9 2 2
. “ An offi cer ’ s d eci si on to obta i n a warr ant i s prim a faci e evi dence that she was ac ti ng i n go od f ai th. ” M ykyt i uk, 40 2 F.3d at 777. The d efendant can rebut the pr esum pti on o fgo od f ai th by showing that (1 ) the i ssui ng j ud ge abandoned hi s r ol e a s a neutr aland detached arbi ter ; ( 2) the offi cer s were re c kl ess o r dis honestin p re pari ng the sup port i ng affi davi t; o r ( 3) the a ffi d avit w as so l ac k i ngi n pr o babl e ca us e th atno offic er co u ld h av e re as on ab ly re lied on it. Id. ( ci ti ng Le on , 468 U
. S. at92 3)
. Oro zco co nfines hi s a rgum en t to this l ast10 N o. 06

- 4235 po i nt

— he cl ai m s that no r ea sonab l e o ffi cerco uld have bel i eve d A gent Bu rr ess ’ s affi davi t w as suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh pro babl e ca use. W e a r e no t pe r s ua de d. W e e v a l ua t e a n o ffi c e r’ s g o o dfait h relia n c e w ith an an aly sis sim ilar to th e o n e u se d in q u alifie d -im m u n ity ca se s a n d ch ar ge offic er s w ith kn ow led ge o fw ell-e st ab lish ed lega l p rin c ip les

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Koerth , 312 F .3d 86 2, 86 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. W e hav e no t “c lea rly h eld th at a m at er ially sim ilar affid av it p re vio u sly fai led to esta bli s h p robab le cause un d er facts tha t w ere i nd i stingui shabl e fro m tho se prese nted i n the c ase at hand

. ” Id. T o th e c o n t r a r y, th e f a c ts i n Lamon w er e qui te si m i l ar( th o ug h n o t i den ti ca l ) t o t hos e ati ss ue he r e, a nd w e up he ld th e w arran t in that c a se. Fu rthe rm ore, th ere i s no thi ng o n the f ace o f this warra nt thatwould cause th e e xecuti ng o ffi cer s t o suspect that probabl e ca use w as l acking. The di str i ct cou rtco rr ectly c oncl ud ed that Age ntB ur r es s ac te d i n g o o d f ai thwhenhe e xe cut ed th e se ar cho fOr o zc o ’ s ho m e i n r el i an ce o n the w arrant
. The cour t there f or e pr oper l y deni ed Oro zco ’ s s up press i on m o ti o n.

B. Ev i den ce o fPri orConvi ct i on O ro zc o n ex t c o n t e n d s t h at th e e vid en c e re lat in g t o h is p rior firea rm co n vic tio n w as ina d m iss ible u n d er R u le 40 4( b) o fthe Fed eral R ules o f E vid ence. W e wi l l up ho l d a d ist ric t jud ge ’s R u le 4 04 (b ) ru lin g if (1) t h e e vid en c e is admi tt ed f o r a pur po se o th erth an es tabl i sh i ngthe de fen d an t’s p ro p en sit y t o c om m it a cr im e; (2) t h e e v i d e n c e is si m i l are no ug h a nd c l o se e no ug h i n t i m e to b e r el ev an tN o. 06

- 4235 11 to the m att erathand; ( 3) the evi d en c e is suffi ci ent t o su ppo r t a j ur y fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan t co m m i tte d the si m i l aract; a n d (4 ) the proba ti ve val ue o fthe evi dence is n otsu b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed b y th e d an ge r of u n fair p rej u d ice
. SeeU nite d State s v. D ennis , 49 7 F
. 3d 7 65 , 7 68 (7th C ir. 2007). The dis tr i ct c ourtappli ed these f acto rs a n d concl ud ed that Offi cer W oo ds’s te sti m ony w as adm i ssibl e under Rule 404(b)

. W e agr ee. Fi rs t, the evi dence w as not ad m itt ed t o sh ow O ro zc o’s p ro p en sit y to c om m it c rim e; it w as adm i tte d fo r the purpos e o fsho w i ng th at Orozc o ha nd les firearm s w ith his right ha nd , not h is l eft. Furth erm or e, Oro zco o pened the doorto this ev i dence by cro ssexam i ni ng Agent Orm er od abo ut the f act that the ho l ster foun d in his closet w as set up for a right-ha n d sh o o t er. See U nited Sta tes v. B ursey, 85 F.3d 293, 297 ( 7th C ir. 1 9 9 6). Once he d id so, the gov er nm ent was fre e t o i ntro du ce evi dence te nd i ng to sho w thatal though he w as l eftha nd e d, O ro z c o h a nd l e s fi r e a r ms wi th hi s r i g hth a nd

. M o r eo ve r, the e vi den ce was s uffi ci en tly s i m i l art o the charged fir ear m o ffense to be r el evantto the i ssues bei ng tr i ed; Oro zco ’ s pri orand p re sent gun offenses both i nvol ved act s o funl aw ful posse ssi on. Oro zco ar gues that the a ct o fto ssing a gu n w h il e r unning fro m pol i ce d i ffe r s s i g n i f i c a nt l y fr o m th e a c to fp u l l i n ga g u n fr o m a holster to sh oot. W hile certainly not iden tical, they are sim ilar en ou gh for p u rp os es of R u l e 40 4(b ). See U nited St at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F. 3d 1256 , 12 64- 65 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( obs er vi ngtha t we wil l no t en f o r ce the s i m i l ar i tyr equi r ement too ri gidly). The f acts u n d er lyi ng Oro zco ’ s pri orco nvi ctio n d em on st ra te th at O ro zc o c ar rie d a gu n on h is12 N o. 06

- 4235 rig h t s id e a n d u se d h is rig h t h an d t o p u ll it ou t o f h is w ai stba nd and toss i t a w ay; thi s e vi dence sugg est s

— alb eit n otco n c lu siv ely

— th at O ro zc o h an d les g u n s w ith h is r i g ht ha nd de spi te b eingg en er al l y l eft- ha nde d. The evi dence w as cl ear l y s tr ong enough

— Orozc o ple aded g ui l t y i n the e a r l i e r cas e

— and i ts proba ti ve val ue was not outweighed by the dangero fun fair prej ud i ce t o Or o zc o . F i na l l y, the di st r i ctj udge iss ue d a l i m i tingi nst ru c tio n rem in d in g t h e j u ry th at th is evid en c e c ou ld on ly be c onsi dered o n the questi on o fwh ether O ro zco used hi s r i ght ha nd to handle guns. A ccor d in gly, the dist ri ct cour t di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in adm i tting the eviden ce r el at i ngt o Or o zc o ’ s pr i o r fi r ea r m c o nv i ct i o n.
C. S e nt e nc e E nha nc e me nt Fin ally , Or oz c o a rg u es th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p er ly en h anced hi s s entence bytwo l eve l s forposs ess i ng a gun i n connect i on w i th a drug o ffense. S ecti on 2 D1. 1( b) ( 1) o fthe sen te nc i ngg ui del i ne s i ns truct s th e se nt en cing cour t t o i ncre ase a defe nd an t’s b ase o ffense l eve l by t wo l e v e l s “ [ i ] fa d a n g e r o u s we a p o n ( i n c l u d i n ga fi r e a r m) w as p os se ss ed .” A p p lic a t i o n N ot e 3 cla rifies th at th is e n h a n c e me n ts h o u l d n o tb e a p p l i e d i f“ i ti s c l e a r l y i mp ro b ab le th at th e w ea p on w as co n n ec te d w ith th e o ffen se .” A burden- shi fti ng appro ach dete rm i nes i f the § 2D1. 1( b) ( 1) en h an c em en t a p p lies

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bot hun , 42 4 F
. 3d 582 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. The go ver nm ent m u st fi rs t pr ove bya p re p ondera nce o fthe evi dence thatthe defe nd ant pos
ses sed the gun; o nce i t has done s o, the burd en s h ifts to the defendant to sho w thati t w as “ c l ear l y i m probabl e”N o. 06

- 4235 13 th atthe g un wa s co nne ct ed to the un d er l y i ngdr ug offe n se . Id. at 586. H er e, the g o ve r nm en t pl ainl y met i ts b ur deno fpr o ving that Orozc o posse sse d the gun found in hi s ho use; Oro zco f ai l e d t o c a r r y h i s b ur de n o fe s t ab l i s hingtha ti twas “c l ea r l y i m pr o babl e” th atthe g un wa s co nne ct ed to the c h a r ged dru g con sp iracy. Oroz co p oints ou t tha t the re was no e vi den ce tha t th e g un w as a ctua l l y us ed i n a ny drug tr ansact i on, but thi s ar gum ent m i sse s the po in t. Age ntOr m er o d t es ti fi ed tha t he f o und the g un a nd am m u n itio n in O ro zc o’ s h om e a n d th e h ols te r inh is bedro om . H e a l so tes ti fi ed that age nts fo und a dig i tal scal e with tr aces o fco cai ne r esi du e in the hom e, sugge sting tha t Orozc o conducted drug tr ansact i ons ther e. That ther e w as no e vi dence thatOro zco actual l y used the gun i n connec tio n w i th a drug tr ansact i on does not m ake i t “ cl ear l y i m probabl e” that the gun w as connect ed to the un d erlyi ng dru g con sp iracy. Th e d istri ct cou rt proper l y a pp l i ed the § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 1) enhancem ent. For the f or ego i ng re aso ns, w e A F F I RM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

8- 13- 09