Opinion ID: 155026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: firearm/controlled substance offense

Text: 19 In his final claim of error, defendant asserts that the district court improperly assigned him an offense level of 34, because it incorrectly found that he used or possessed a firearm in connection with a controlled substance offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). The evidence at sentencing showed that when officers entered defendant's trailer to execute a search warrant, they found a riot-type shotgun loaded with slugs leaning against the wall, within two feet of the chair where defendant was sitting. The district court concluded that the shotgun was being used 4 in connection with the defendant's distribution of drugs, R. Vol. III at 36, adopted the conclusion in the presentence report that the shotgun was possessed during and in connection with the possession of methamphetamine, and therefore assigned the 34 offense level. 20 Cases discussing the scope of the term during and in relation to, as used in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), provide guidance in applying the in connection with test used in § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). Cf. United States v. Gomez-Arrellano, 5 F.3d 464, 466 (10th Cir.1993) (interpreting similar provision in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5)). The Supreme Court has indicated that the in relation to term, used in § 924(c)(1), is to be interpreted expansively. See Smith v. United States, 21 508 U.S. 223, 237 (1993). 22 Defendant argues that since he did not actually deal drugs out of his trailer, the shotgun could not have been used or possessed in connection with a drug offense. A firearm is possessed in connection with a drug offense if it facilitates or has the potential to facilitate the offense. Cf. Gomez-Arrellano, 5 F.3d at 466-67 (discussing in relation to test). Although the district court stated at sentencing that defendant possessed the shotgun in connection with drug distribution, it also adopted the presentence report, which called for enhancement based on possession of the firearm in connection with drug possession. Possession with intent to distribute is a controlled substance offense which will support enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(2). We may affirm defendant's sentence for any reason which appears in the record, including reasons other than those relied upon by the district court, provided they are supported by the record. See United States v. Myers, 106 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 1997 WL 250766 (U.S. June 9, 1997). We will therefore affirm if the evidence shows that the shotgun was possessed in connection with defendant's possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. 23 At defendant's sentencing hearing, Officer Damrom, who investigated defendant, detailed his drug distribution scheme. He explained that defendant did not use the trailer as a residence; rather, it was used only in connection with his drug distribution activities. He further explained that officers found two and one half ounces of methamphetamine in defendant's trailer, in various states of packaging for distribution. Id. Vol. III at 22. He voiced the opinion of officers at the scene that defendant kept the shotgun at his trailer as an intimidation factor to protect his drug operation, id. at 26, and that the gun, loaded with slugs, was particularly useful for self-defense in close quarters. 24 In United States v. Hallum, 103 F.3d 87, 89 (10th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1710 (1997), we denied downward departure to defendants who were unable to show that they did not possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon in connection with the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. The gun involved in that case was a rifle found in a vehicle parked 200 to 300 yards from the defendants' marijuana patch. See id. The defendants were arrested as they carried duffle bags containing marijuana from the patch to their vehicles. See id. The fact that defendant Hallum testified that he had the gun for protection was sufficient to establish proximity of the firearm to the offense. See id. We conclude that even if the actual dealing of drugs did not take place at defendant's trailer, the government showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the firearm (1) was possessed (2) in connection with defendant's drug possession with intent to distribute so as to justify application of § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). 25 Defendant also argues that he did not actively use or possess the shotgun in connection with his drug offenses. He contends that we should analogize the possess element of § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) to the Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation of the use language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in Bailey v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995). We recently rejected a similar argument concerning nearly identical language in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(2). See Hallum, 103 F.3d at 89 (noting that possession has broader meaning than use construed in Bailey ). The same reasoning applies here, and we therefore reject defendant's Bailey argument.