Opinion ID: 153600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sentence Enhancement for Possession of a Firearm

Text: 30 Finally, Mr Gutierrez argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm. Under § 2D1.1(b)(1), the government bears the initial burden of establishing the temporal and spatial proximity of the firearm to the defendant and the drug-trafficking activity. United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 982 (10th Cir.1993). This may be done by presenting evidence that the firearm was in the same general location  'where drugs or drug paraphernalia are stored or where part of the transaction occurred.'  Id. (citation omitted). Once the government meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it is clearly improbable that the firearm was related to the drug transaction. United States v. Contreras, 59 F.3d 1038, 1040 (10th Cir.1995). 31 Mr. Gutierrez claims that no evidence supported the physical proximity of a firearm to any drug activity. The evidence is to the contrary. A loaded 9mm handgun was found in his kitchen two feet from a digital scale. His residence also contained baggies, mobile phones, pagers, and more than $2,000 in cash. Furthermore, testimony at trial indicated that some drug transactions had taken place at Mr. Gutierrez's home. This evidence was sufficient to establish the physical proximity of the gun to drug activity. See, e.g., Chatman, 994 F.2d at 1517 (gun found in bedroom sufficiently proximate to drug transactions that occurred in apartment). 32 The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.