Opinion ID: 667952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Gun Enhancement

Text: 14 Green argues that the district court erred by its initial ruling that the firearm locked in his briefcase was present in furtherance of the crime. The enhancement is proper unless it is clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the offense. United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1989). 15 Green claims that his professional calling as a bounty hunter seeking fugitives who jump bail demonstrates the improbability that the gun was connected to the drug conspiracy. He argues that as a bounty hunter he is permitted and required to carry a firearm because his career is rife with hazard and that it is clearly improbable that he had the gun for any purpose other than bounty hunting. In addition, Green contends that, in any event, the mere presence of the gun is not dispositive because the weapon must be possessed during the criminal conduct. United States v. Stewart, 926 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1991) (emphasis added). Here, the drug sale took place at the Days Inn Motel while Green was at the La Quinta Motel. In fact, Green was never caught anywhere near the drugs. 16 Still, we disagree with Green that the facts demonstrate that his possession of the gun was not in the course of the criminal activity. He testified under oath that he has no license or permit to carry a gun, and no California statute permits a bounty hunter to carry a concealed weapon. And we have long recognized the nexus between deadly weapons and narcotics trafficking. See United States v. Guy, 903 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1990) (drug traffickers often carry firearms). Furthermore, this Court ruled in the first appeal that the gun was relevant evidence to demonstrate participation in the criminal activity. United States v. Green, 91-50542 at 5 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 1992) (memorandum disposition). Therefore, it was not clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the drug conspiracy.