Opinion ID: 168642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Weapons Enhancement

Text: 59 Mr. Hall first contends that the weapons enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) violates his Sixth Amendment rights as stated in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker, because a jury did not find, nor did he admit, facts that would justify such an enhancement. Again, Booker makes clear that judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence standard is unconstitutional only when it operates to increase a defendant's sentence mandatorily. See Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d at 1130. Because the District Court here indisputably applied the Guidelines in a discretionary fashion, there is no Sixth Amendment violation. 60 Next, Mr. Hall argues that the enhancement should not have applied because the Government did not show that he possessed the shotgun or that it was present during the offense. In applying this enhancement, the Government bears the initial burden of proving possession of the weapon by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir.2005). This burden is satisfied when the government demonstrates that a temporal and spatial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence that the weapon was found in a location where drugs or drug paraphernalia is stored establishes the necessary showing. Id. If the government meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it is clearly improbable the weapon was connected with the offense. Id. at 1238 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n. 3 (if the weapon is present, the adjustment should be applied unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense). 61 The District Court's determination of the facts supporting the application of the enhancement is not clearly erroneous. As discussed, supra, in section II.A.4, the shotgun was found in a car sitting right outside Mr. Hall's residence and easily accessible through the top of the vehicle. In addition, other drug paraphernalia was found at the house, including scales with cocaine residue on them. These facts establish the necessary temporal and spatial relationship between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and Mr. Hall. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Mr. Hall to demonstrate that it is clearly improbable that the firearm was connected to his drug trafficking offense. He has failed to meet this burden. 62