Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Custodio GARCIA, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-29
Citations: 492 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 10-3617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Custodio GARCIA, Appellant.
Judges: Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 492
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Custodio GARCIA, Appellant.
No. 10-3617.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 18, 2012.
Filed: Oct. 29, 2012.
Sean W. Pickett, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Joseph M. Marquez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (David M. Ketchmark, Acting U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appel-lee.
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Custodio Garcia appeals his sentence for a drug-trafficking offense, arguing that the district court should have applied the so-called "safety valve" provision, which allows a court to impose a prison sentence below the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We affirm.
Mr. Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846, and to aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm during that conspiracy, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court denied Mr. Garcia's request to apply the safety valve, finding that he "possess[ed] a firearm . in connection with the [conspiracy] offense." See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2). Mr. Garcia argues that his possession of the gun was not in connection with the conspiracy offense but rather was "coincidental" or "entirely unrelated" to his drug trafficking crime.
Mr. Garcia's guilty plea is fatal to his contention. He pleaded guilty to violating § 924(c)(1)(A), which provides a statutory minimum sentence for persons who use or carry a firearm "during and in relation to any . drug trafficking crime" or who possess a firearm "in furtherance of any such crime." We have held that "in relation to," as used in this section, is "equivalent" to the "in connection with" formulation, as used in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), see United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d 685, 686 (8th Cir.1997), and we see no meaningful difference between the two formulations in the circumstances before us. Though a defendant may also violate § 924(c)(1)(A) by possessing a gun "in furtherance" of a drug-trafficking crime, possession "in relation to" is subsumed within possession "in furtherance of," which requires a slightly higher burden of proof. See United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796, 810 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1042, 127 S.Ct. 605, 166 L.Ed.2d 449 (2006). We therefore conclude that Mr. Garcia, by pleading guilty to the firearms offense, admitted that his possession of the gun was "in relation to," and thus "in connection with" the drug offense, as that phrase is used in § 3553(f)(2), and his admission disqualified him from safety-valve relief.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.