Opinion ID: 157359
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weapons Possession Enhancement

Text: Appellants each contend that their sentences were improperly enhanced for possession of firearms based on evidence regarding the .22 rifle and the 9mm rifle. Quarterman contends that the rifles were not connected with the conspiracy, -27- and that even if they were, she had no knowledge of such a connection. She claims that at most the evidence shows she was storing the guns for her sons: the 9mm because Adkins was a convicted felon, and the .22 because her 9-year-old son Hunter was too young. Adkins argues that the 9mm gun belonged to a friend, and that neither the .22 rifle nor the 9mm rifle were connected with the conspiracy. Vaziri makes similar claims. The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an offense level enhancement of two points “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” during a drug conspiracy. USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995). We review factual findings under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error; we give due deference to the application of the Guidelines to the facts; we review purely legal questions de novo. United States v. Underwood , 982 F.2d 426, 428 (10th Cir. 1992). We stated the appropriate legal standard in United States v. Smith , 131 F.3d 1392, 1400 (10th Cir. 1997): “The [enhancement for weapon possession] should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1, comment., (n.3). The government bears the initial burden of proving possession by a preponderance of the evidence, and possession may be satisfied by showing mere proximity to the offense. See United States v. Roberts , 980 F.2d 645, 647 (10th Cir. 1992). The enhancement is then appropriate unless the defendant proves the exception–that it is clearly improbable the weapon was connected with the offense. See id. -28- The government meets its initial burden when it shows that a weapon was located near the general location where at least part of a drug transaction occurred. See United States v. Flores , 149 F.3d 1272, 1280 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Roederer , 11 F.3d 973, 982-83 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, both guns were recovered on March 15, 1997, from Quarterman and Vaziri’s residence, where all three appellants had completed drug transactions in the previous two days. In addition, Agent Peters saw the 9mm rifle on Quarterman’s dining room table during his March 14 visit to Quarterman’s residence, where he completed a drug transaction involving Adkins and Quarterman. The burden therefore falls on appellants to show that it is “clearly improbable” that either gun was “connected with” the conspiracy. Although Vaziri and Quarterman presented convincing evidence that neither ever used or owned guns, that does not establish a lack of connection with the conspiracy. See Smith , 131 F.3d at 1400. There was also evidence that Vaziri and/or Quarterman were merely storing the guns for other persons. Even if credited, this evidence is not enough to meet the “clearly improbable” standard, because no one established that coconspirator Adkins had not likely used the guns in connection with the conspiracy. Therefore we uphold the weapons possession enhancements.