Opinion ID: 748152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enhancement for Possession of Firearm

Text: 13 Hill contends the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The gun was found during a traffic stop in February 1996. Hill argues the weapon enhancement is inapplicable because he did not possess the firearm during the crime for which he was convicted, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in September and November of 1995. 14 This court reviews the trial court's factual findings at sentencing for clear error, while we review the trial court's legal interpretation of a Sentencing Guideline de novo. See United States v. Earls, 42 F.3d 1321,1326 (10th Cir.1994). 15 Section 1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires courts to consider relevant conduct when sentencing a defendant. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. In United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1993), this court held that the relevant conduct provision of the Sentencing Guidelines applies to weapons enhancements under § 2D1.1(b)(1). See id. at 982. Thus, in evaluating whether the enhancement should be applied, the sentencing court looks not only at the offense of conviction but also at all acts  'that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.'  See id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)); see also United States v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 720 (4th Cir.1993) (Even when a guilty plea is entered on a single count of possession, the court must nevertheless look to the entire relevant conduct in determining the sentence. That conduct includes .... possession of a gun while engaging in drug sales related to, though distinct from, the crime of conviction. (citations omitted)). 16 In order to establish weapon possession, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence  'that a temporal and spatial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.'  Roederer, 11 F.3d at 982 (quoting United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th Cir.1993)). The necessary proximity is generally established by  'evidence that the weapon was found in the same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia are stored or where part of the transaction occurred.'  Id. at 983 (quoting United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 882 (5th Cir.1991)). 17 Officer Robert Negri testified that during the February traffic stop, a shotgun was found next to the driver's seat of the van and the vehicle also contained chemicals and equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine. The district court found the conduct of Hill and the van's passengers was closely related to the offense of conviction, and identified the intended sale of contraband as a common thread. The court further found that Hill was, at a minimum, in joint possession of the weapon and that, as driver of the van, Hill was situated better than anyone else to brandish the weapon. Based on the record, these findings are not clearly erroneous. 18 Because the district court found the weapon was possessed during conduct closely related to the offense of conviction, the weapon enhancement is applicable. The government need not show the weapon was possessed during the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. Therefore, this court affirms the two-level weapon enhancement. 19