Opinion ID: 3003675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Firearm Enhancement (2D1.1(b)(1))

Text: Perez also challenges his two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm in connection with his drug trafficking offense. At sentencing, Perez objected to the enhancement by stating that it was clearly improbable that the gun was used in connection with a drug offense. For the first time on appeal, Perez also objects that the government failed to establish that he had direct or constructive possession of the firearm used to enhance his sentence. Because he did not raise this latter argument during sentencing or in his written objections to the PSR, we review this challenge for plain error, as opposed to clear error. See United States v. Banks, 405 F.3d 559, 564 (7th Cir. 2005) (issue not raised in district court is reviewed for plain error). The relationship (or lack of one) between the weapon and the underlying offense is a factual assessment, so we review the district court’s enhancement for clear error. See United States v. Bothun, 424 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. No. 07-2375 11 2005). Guideline section § 2D1.1(b)(1) provides for a twolevel increase in the base offense level for a narcotics offense “if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” Application Note 3 explains: The enhancement for weapon possession reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in the closet. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Section § 2D1.1 cmt. n. 3. (Emphasis added). The government first must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Perez possessed the gun in a place where drugs were present. See United States v. Idowu, 520 F.3d 790, 793 (7th Cir. 2008). The evidence presented to the district court judge at the sentencing hearing established that Perez owned the house where the firearm and the various quantities of drugs were recovered. Once that was established, the burden shifted to Perez to show that it was “clearly improbable” that the gun was connected to the offense. See id. The government did not need to prove that Perez had actual possession of the firearm; only that he had constructive possession of the weapon, that is, the power and the intention to exercise dominion or control over the weapon. See Bothun, 424 F.3d at 586. 12 No. 07-2375 The officers located the .38-caliber Smith and Wesson gun in Perez’s bedroom in a home which he owned. In the same home where the gun was found, the officers also found over $550,000 worth of illegal narcotics and the materials to package and distribute the drugs. Perez never challenged ownership of the residence nor did he dispute that the drugs were retrieved from the same location where the gun was recovered. This evidence is sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that Perez had constructive possession of the gun found at his home and that the gun was used in connection with his drug activity. See Idowu, 520 F.3d at 794 (enhancement applied when gun was recovered at defendant’s office where drugs were stored and sold); see also Bothun, 424 F.3d at 586 (“guns found in close proximity to drug activity are presumptively connected to that activity.”). Perez argues that it was clearly improbable that the gun was related to the drug activity because the gun was not recovered near the drugs and was not “easily accessible.” Recognizing that it is possible that weapons may be hidden and still be used as part of drug activity, we have upheld § 2D1.1 enhancements when a weapon was recovered in one room of a residence even if it is not the same room where the drugs were located because constructive possession requires only the defendant’s ability to exercise control over the weapon, something that can be done without holding, brandishing or firing the gun. See, e.g., Bothun, 424 F.3d at 586 (finding gun was presumptively connected to drug activity where gun was found in bedroom of home and drugs were No. 07-2375 13 found in other parts of the home); United States v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752, 767 (7th Cir. 2005) (it was not “clearly improbable” that weapon was used in connection with drug offense where gun was found under the mattress in defendant’s bedroom and defendant was selling drugs out of her house); United States v. Grimm, 170 F.3d 760, 76768 (7th Cir. 1999) (it was not “clearly improbable” that weapon was used in connection with drug offense even though gun was not found in a place where drugs were present where gun was found in car that had been used to transport shipment of drugs six weeks earlier). We have consistently held that weapons are “recognized tools of the drug trade” and that the possession of a gun can advance the possession and future distribution of narcotics by protecting the drugs or the drug dealer, by serving as a potent warning to those who might contemplate stealing the drugs and by serving as a tool to defend against those who actually undertake to steal the drugs. United States v. Duran, 407 F.3d 828, 838 (7th Cir. 2005); see also e.g., United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806, 814-15 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, the gun was found in Perez’s bedroom between two mattresses and in close proximity to numerous rounds of ammunition while a distribution quantity of drugs was located in other rooms of the same house. Also found in the apartment was a bulletproof vest. The amount of drugs recovered, the kilo presses and the packaging material all indicate that Perez was using his home as a drug trafficking headquarters and as such Perez had an interest in protecting his investment and securing the safety of his product. The gun did not need to be located next to the 14 No. 07-2375 drugs to be quickly and easily available for use; Perez could have retrieved the gun at any moment to protect his drug trade. Lastly, Perez’s argument that the gun may not have been loaded is immaterial because the purpose of the weapon enhancement is to reflect the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. Even if Perez’s gun was unloaded, which is not clear from the record, there was ammunition for the gun located in the same room as the gun. Perez could have easily loaded the gun and used it if he desired to. The mere presence of the gun escalated the danger of Perez’s drug operation. See United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 763-64 (7th Cir. 1999) (affirming gun enhancement where weapons were unloaded when found by police); see also United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 277-78 (5th Cir. 1994) (affirming gun enhancement even though gun was inoperable). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1).