Opinion ID: 170163
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Increase for Possession of a Firearm

Text: We review the district court’s determination that Mr. Rivera-Morales possessed a firearm under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error. United States v. Topete-Plascencia, 351 F.3d 454, 458 (10th Cir. 2003). USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) provides that the offense should be increased two levels “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” The government bears the initial burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a firearm was 5 possessed. United States v. Pompey, 264 F.3d 1176, 1180. To prove possession under § 2D1.1(b)(1), “the government need only show that the weapon was found in the same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia are stored.” United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the rifle was discovered in the trunk, under the marijuana. The government therefore was easily able to prove “a temporal and spatial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 982 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), thereby meeting its burden of showing that a firearm was possessed. Once the government meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it was “clearly improbable” that the gun was connected to the offense. Pompey, 264 F.3d at 1181; see also, USSG § 2D1.1, cmt. n.3. Again, the gun, which Mr. Rivera-Morales knew was present, was found under 93 kilograms of marijuana. Mr. Rivera-Morales argues that because the gun was not easily accessible, it is clearly improbable that it was connected to the offense. Aplt’s Br. at 14-15. We are not persuaded. We can easily envision a situation in which the defendants unload the contraband to be sold, something goes awry with the deal, and the defendants turn to the gun to inflict either intimidation or actual injury. Regardless of whether Mr. RiveraMorales himself ever envisioned such a scenario, the burden is his to show that it is clearly improbable that the firearm was connected to the offense. Mr. Talamantes, the driver of the vehicle and Mr. Rivera-Morales’s co-defendant, 6 said that he intended to sell the rifle to the person who sold them the marijuana. However, the gun was in the car and fully loaded after the marijuana purchase. In light of this evidence, it was not clear error for the district court to find that Mr. Rivera-Morales did not show that it was “clearly improbable” that the gun was connected to the offense, and to accordingly apply the two-level increase under § 2D1.1(b)(1).