Opinion ID: 2995692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) Possession of

Text: a Dangerous Weapon The district court’s application of a sentencing guidelines enhancement is also reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Smith, 280 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2002); Bjorkman, 270 F.3d at 493; United States v. Berthiaume, 233 F.3d 1000, 1002 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cain, 155 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 1998). Substantial deference is accorded to findings based on credibility, which are almost never clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Hickok, 77 F.3d 992, 1007 (7th Cir. 1996). Section 2D1.1(b)(1) provides: If a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed, increase [the offense lev el] by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). Application Note 3 further provides: The enhancement for weapon possession reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in the closet. U.S.S.G. sec. 2D.1.1, Application Note 3. Based upon the language in section 2D1.1, we have held that the government need only demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant possessed the weapon during the relevant period of drug activity. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d at 492-93. And once the Government meets its burden, the defendant must demonstrate that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense. United States v. Booker, 248 F.3d 683, 689 (7th Cir. 2001); Bjorkman, 270 F.3d at 492-93.
To the government’s knowledge the drug conspiracy began in 1994 and lasted until 1999. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) records established that Melvin Alicea purchased fourteen firearms (thirteen handguns and one rifle) between 1995 and 1997. Melvin Alicea showed one of his customers, Perry Zubeck, one of the handguns he owned. Melvin also threatened another customer, who he heard had been talking to the police, stating, [talking] was a good way to get a bullet in the head.
Victor Alicea joined the conspiracy in 1995, and ATF records showed that Victor Alicea bought a handgun in 1996. A stainless steel .9 mm Ruger handgun with a laser-aiming device was recovered from Victor Alicea’s home. During the sentencing hearing Adam Young, a regular customer of Victor Alicea’s since 1995, testified that during one occasion when he went to Alicea’s home, Alicea showed Young a stainless steel Ruger handgun with a laser-aiming device. The gun was later identified as the same one recovered from Alicea’s home. The government argued that Victor Alicea showed Young the weapon to deter Young and anyone else from robbing him. Alicea asserts that there is no nexus between the firearm and the drug conspiracy because no evidence establishes that the weapon was used during the conspiracy. In his brief Victor Alicea states that no drugs were recovered from his home and that there was no ammunition found in the weapon. Melvin Alicea, in a similar vein, argues that there is no evidence he brandished or displayed a weapon during a drug transaction. The defendants’ arguments misapprehend the government’s burden; the government need only demonstrate that the defendant possessed a weapon during the drug conspiracy. See, e.g., Booker, 248 F.3d at 689. Then it is up to the defendant to refute this claim by establishing that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d at 493. Although the gun was not found loaded or next to drugs at the time it was recovered, that does not establish that the weapon had no connection to the conspiracy. See United States v. Adams, 125 F.3d 586, 596 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding the government is not required to show that the weapon was present during a specific drug trafficking offense.); Cain, 155 F.3d at 843-44 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his possession of the gun was unrelated to the drug conspiracy); see also United States v. Cantero, 995 F.2d 1407, 1412 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting that drug dealers often carry weapons to protect themselves and their large amounts of drugs and cash.). The district court found that both Victor Alicea and Melvin Alicea did posses weapons during the relevant period of conduct and it was not clearly improbable that the weapons were connected with the drug conspiracy. There is no clear error in these findings.