Opinion ID: 695622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Increase for Possessing a Firearm

Text: 35 Hansley argues that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1), which provides for a two-level increase [i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed. The district court applied this specific offense characteristic because when officers executed the search warrant for Hansley's residence, they found a firearm. At his sentencing hearing, Hansley argued that the firearm that was seized from his house [was not] related to the commission of the offense. The government responded that the officers executing the warrant found the gun in the house near several drug-related items. 36 In Hall, this court explained that a section 2D1.1(b)(1) adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. Hall, 46 F.3d at 63 (quoting U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1, comment. (n. 3) (1991)). Thus, [o]nce the prosecution has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was present at the site of the charged conduct, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant to show that a connection between the firearm and the offense is clearly improbable. Hall, 46 F.3d at 63. In Hall, this court held that the two-level increase was proper because [t]he proximity of the handgun to several drug-related objects, located in the house where conversations concerning the [drug scheme] occurred, sufficiently show that the handgun was possessed during the offense. Furthermore, [the defendant] presented no evidence to suggest that a connection between the handgun and the [drug scheme] was clearly improbable. Hall, 46 F.3d at 64. 37 Likewise, in this case, the government showed that the agents found a firearm and other drug-related items in Hansley's residence, where he engaged in conspiratorial conversations. Furthermore, Hansley presented no evidence to suggest that a connection between the firearm and his drug conspiracy was clearly improbable. Thus, we find that the two-level increase, pursuant to section 2D1.1(b)(1), was proper.