Opinion ID: 734798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith's Challenge

Text: 4 After Smith successfully appealed his gun-use conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Smith, 80 F.3d 215, the district court enhanced Smith's sentence for firearm possession under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Smith now challenges this enhancement as resting on clear error. For the enhancement to properly apply to Smith, based on his co-conspirator's possession of weapons, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that firearm possession was reasonably foreseeable by Smith. United States v. Vold, 66 F.3d 915, 920 (7th Cir.1995). Smith claims it was not reasonably foreseeable. 5 During the resentencing hearing, the district court found that this was Smith's first involvement in the conspiracy. It further found that Smith did not know Shepherd before meeting him that night, did not know of the gun in his car, and may not have known of the guns in Sanchez's car. 3 The district court correctly pointed out, however, that reasonable foreseeability, not knowledge, is the standard for the enhancement. The court found that it was reasonably foreseeable to Smith that these co-conspirators would possess firearms. The court gave no detailed reasons for so finding, merely stating that Smith was aware of the overall scheme, and thus, the entire method of operation was reasonably foreseeable. The court also referenced the fact that because the jury had found Smith guilty under § 924(c), it must necessarily have found that the gun possession was reasonably foreseeable to Smith. 6 This case is similar to Vold, 66 F.3d 915, in which we held that the firearm-possession enhancement must be based on more than the mere association between firearms and drug trafficking. In Vold, as here, there was no evidence that the relevant co-conspirator fired or brandished any gun, nor that the co-conspirator made any mention of possession a gun. Vold, 66 F.3d at 921. Indeed, the district court found that Smith had just met Shepherd, the possessor of the handgun, for the first time that night in the hotel. 7 In sum, the court enhanced Smith's sentence based on Smith's awareness of the overall scheme and deference to the jury's findings. But no deference is due to jury findings based on insufficient evidence. And the overall scheme appears to be nothing more than transporting drugs from Arizona to Ohio via caravan. Other than the common association between guns and drugs, there appears no reason why it would have been foreseeable that co-conspirators in this scheme would possess firearms. This is not enough to support the finding that Smith could reasonably foresee firearm possession on the part of his co-conspirators. As in Vold, we hold here that the district court committed clear error when it enhanced Smith's sentence for possession of a firearm under § 2D1.1(b)(1) of the guidelines.