Opinion ID: 3151279
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Firearm

Text: Camacho also argues that the Government presented insufficient evidence that he possessed a firearm in the course of criminal activity. We review for clear error the district court’s determination that Camacho possessed a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking offense. United States v. Wheaton, 517 F.3d 350, 367 (6th Cir. 2008). Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement if a firearm was possessed during the commission of a drug offense. Id. The Government must 2 Camacho does not dispute that there were five or more participants. Appellant Br. 36. 11 No. 14-6405, United States v. Camacho establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Camacho actually or constructively possessed a weapon. United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 390–91 (6th Cir. 2002). Here, Perez and Vivanco’s testimony that Camacho armed himself during some or all of the cocaine transactions at which they were present was unrebutted. Thus, a presumption arose that such possession was connected to the offense, and the burden shifted to Camacho to demonstrate that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense. Id. at 391. Camacho did not meet this burden. On appeal, he simply argues that his co-defendants are unreliable witnesses, and Investigator Whitson’s testimony is pure speculation. Appellant Br. 5. We find no clear error. The district court reasonably relied on Perez and Vivanco’s testimony to conclude that Camacho possessed a firearm in connection with his drug-trafficking offense. See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 67 F. App’x 257, 267 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming application of the firearm enhancement based only on co-conspirator testimony that district court found “somewhat credible.”).