### The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, sitting by designation. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District 2 

### Judge for the District of South Dakota. No. 96-2652SD
John Howard Wright, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the United States of America, * District of South Dakota, * Southern Division. Appellee. *

Submitted: March 11, 1997 Filed: May 7, 1997
Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and LAUGHREY, District 1 Judge.
LAUGHREY, District Judge. John Howard Wright appeals from the district court’s Order denying 2 his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. We affirm.
Wrig ht pled guilty to an Information charging manufacture o f marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On September 22, 1994, the district judge se ntenced Wright to 76 months in prison and four years supervised release. We affirmed Wright’s conviction and sentence on direc t appeal. United States v. Wright , 56 F.3d 69

### -2-

(8th Cir. 1995). Wright later filed this § 3582(c)(2) Motion to Modify hi s Sentence. Section 3582(c)(2) permits modification of a sentence after a prov ision of the Sentencing Guidelines has been amended. To justif y resentencing, Wright relied on an amendment to Section 2D1.1(c)n.(E) of th e Sentencing Guidelines which altered the method for quantifying marijuana.

Even after this amendment was taken into account, Wright still faced
a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months because his offense involved mor e than 100 marijuana plants. On resentencing, Wri ght attempted to avoid the imposition of the mandatory minimum by arguing that the district judg e should apply the “safety valve” provision i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The sa fety valve provision permits a court to impose a sentence without regard to a s tatutory minimum if certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is that “the defendant did not use violence or credible threa ts of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (o r induce another partic ipant to do so) in connection with the offense.” 28 U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(2). In this case the district court found that the safet y valve did not apply because the defendant possessed a firearm in connectio n with his drug offense . The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of this finding.

We review the district judge’s factual findings under the clearl y
erron eous standard and we give due deference to his application of th e guidelines. United States v. Kalb , 105 F.3d 426 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Berndt , 86 F.3d 803, 810 (8th Cir. 1996). This court will not
reverse a district court’s conclusion that a weapon is connected to th e offense of conviction unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v

. Betz , 82 F.3d 205 (8th Cir. 1996). A defendant seeking relief under the safety valve has the burden to show that each co ndition of the statute has been satisfied. United States v. Gambino , 106 F.3d 1105 (2d Cir.

### -3-

1997)(under Sentencing Guidelines the party that seeks adjustment generall y bears the burden of proof, citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, et seq.); United State s v. Ajugwo , 82 F.3d 92 5, 929 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ramirez , 94 F.3d 1095, 1100-02 (7th Cir. 1996); United State s v. Verners , 103 F.3d 108 (10th Cir. 1996).
The appli cable facts are largely undisputed. Wright was arrested on
a rural road as he loaded crates of marijuana plants into a van. He and his accomplice, Riley, were in the process of planting the marijuana in th e field of an unsuspecting farmer. They had brought the marijuana plant s from Colorado in a pickup truck and had been staying at a motel in the are a while they traveled at night to different farms in the area to deposi t their plants. When the motel room was searched following Wright’s arrest, the officers found $6500 in cash, handwritten ma ps showing the location of 602 marijuana plants and a large cache of weapons which Wright admitte d
were his. The district judge found that these weapons had been transporte d to South Dakota in the pickup truck along with the marijuana. Wright’ s psychiatrist testified at an earlier sentencing that Wright had paranoid delusi ons and acquired these firearms “primarily” for the purpose o f protecting himself fr om members of organized crime who were attempting to kill him. The district judge found that Wright possessed the guns, i n par t, because of his “paranoid delusions,” but also found that h e possessed the guns, in part, because of his marijuana operation.

The fact ual findings made by the district judge are well supporte d by the record and not clearly erroneous. The only remaining question is whether the district judge correctly applied the se facts when he concluded that the safety valve provision did not apply.

### -4- Our court addressed a similar questi on in United States v. Burke , 91 F. 3d 1052 (8th Cir. 1996). We held that for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 355 3(f) and Section 5C1.2(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines, a firearm i s used in connection with an offense if the “weapon facilitated or had the potential to facilitate [the] drug offense.” Id . at 1053. While the guns at the motel were not in Wright’s possession at the time he was arrested, they were in his poss ession at the time he traveled with the marijuana to Sout h Dakota and were available to him while he traveled between th e targeted farms and hi s motel room. The motel room also contained indicia of drug trafficking, the $6500 in cash and the m aps locating the marijuana plants. Merely because the guns were not in his possession at the time of his arr est does not mean he did not possess them in connection with hi s offense, the manufact ure of marijuana. United States v. Wilson , 106 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir. 1997)(Defendant did not possess weapons at time of arrest bu t had possessed weapons in connection with drug dealing during the previous year.) Wright’s offe nse was ongoing, the weapons were found at the motel which was the focal point of the drug planting operation, he transported the guns with the marijuana, and other indicia of drug trafficking wer e found in the motel ro om in close proximity to the guns. It is clear that the defendant did not meet his burden of showing that he did not possess these firearms in connection with his drug offense. Thus, we affirm the district court’s refusal to apply the safety valve provision.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEAL, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.