Opinion ID: 538806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vargas-Santanas

Text: 22 Vargas-Santanas raises two challenges to his sentence. First, he asserts that the district court improperly enhanced his base offense level by adding two levels for possession of a firearm under Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1), conduct for which he, unlike his co-defendant Rodriguez-Gonzalez, was not indicted. Vargas-Santanas challenges the enhancement on the ground that the district court's finding that he possessed a firearm was clearly erroneous. Although Vargas-Santanas admits that the agents found a loaded gun on top of a stereo, he nevertheless contends that the gun was improperly attributed to him. In support, Vargas-Santanas claims, among other things, that there was no indication that he ever possessed or used the gun or that it was present during the drug transaction. 23 We are not persuaded. The determination of the application of a Sentencing Guideline is a question of fact, entitled to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review. United States v. Lanese, 890 F.2d 1284, 1291 (2d Cir.1989); see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(e). In order to receive a Guidelines enhancement for possession of a firearm, a defendant need not be in actual possession of the firearm at the time the firearm is seized. Lanese, 890 F.2d at 1292. Although, as Vargas-Santanas points out, the district court noted at trial that it was not an inconceivable possibility that somebody could have gotten the gun out when the commotion started to occur, i.e., after Vargas-Santanas had left the apartment, we cannot say that the district court's subsequent finding that Vargas-Santanas possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime was clearly erroneous. 24 At Vargas-Santanas' sentencing proceeding, the district court noted that the gun was in the apartment that he had used on repeated occasions, indeed only minutes beforehand for the commission of the crime in question, and ... he had admitted it was his apartment. The court further emphasized all that we know about the service of guns to a narcotics offense, and [in] particular guns of this sort. Moreover, the commentary to Sec. 2D1.1 provides that [t]he enhancement for weapon possession reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons, and further, that [t]he adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. Sec. 2D1.1, comment (n. 3). By way of example, the commentary states that the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in the closet. Id. The facts of this case are not at all analogous to that hypothetical, despite Vargas-Santanas' contention to the contrary. Thus, under these circumstances, we cannot say that enhancement for weapons possession was improper. 25 Second, Vargas-Santanas argues that the district court erred in adding two levels for his role as an organizer, manager and leader of the criminal activity under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(c). Vargas-Santanas argues, among other things, that this was only a three-man operation; that he did not exercise control over others or decision-making authority; and that there was no evidence that he, rather than Rodriguez-Gonzalez, was the leader. 26 The district court's finding of Vargas-Santanas' dominant role in the offense was not clearly erroneous and the resulting sentence enhancement was proper. For example, Vargas-Santanas negotiated with Joy, the government's confidential informant; sold him the initial 101 grams of cocaine and collected the money for this sale; gave Joy's contact Papo $50 and a small quantity of cocaine, presumably for bringing Joy to the apartment; brought the kilo of cocaine to an apartment that Vargas-Santanas admitted was his own on the day following the 101-gram sale; and directed the activity of Rodriguez-Gonzalez, who had entered the country illegally only one week earlier and conducted small drug deals on Vargas-Santanas' behalf. 27 The sentences imposed by the district court are affirmed.