Opinion ID: 4540186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Firearms Charge

Text: To convict Mendoza for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), the Government had to prove that he 1) committed a drug trafficking crime; 2) knowingly possessed a firearm; and 3) possessed the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. See United States v. Alverio-Meléndez, 640 F.3d 412, 419 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Pena, 586 F.3d 105, 112 (1st Cir. 2009)); see Bobadilla-Pagán, 747 F.3d at 35. We already determined that there was sufficient evidence to convict Mendoza -23- of possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute -- namely, that he committed a drug trafficking crime, see United States v. Luciano, 329 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (finding that possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute is a drug trafficking crime) -- so the first element is satisfied. The second element is similarly met as we have concluded that the jury reasonably could infer Mendoza's constructive possession of the drugs, and the same possession analysis applies to the firearms. See United States v. Robinson, 473 F.3d 387, 398 (1st Cir. 2007) (In order to prove possession of a firearm, the government must show actual possession or constructive possession.). Therefore, at this stage we must address whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the third element of the offense: that Mendoza possessed the firearms seized in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. To satisfy the in-furtherance requirement, the government must establish 'a sufficient nexus between the firearm and the drug crime such that the firearm advances or promotes the drug crime.' Rodríguez-Torres, 939 F.3d at 30 (quoting United States v. Gurka, 605 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2010)). In assessing whether the requirement has been satisfied, we analyze the evidence from both objective and subjective standpoints. Bobadilla-Pagán, 747 F.3d at 35. The objective factors include: (1) the proximity of the firearm to drugs or contraband; -24- (2) whether the firearm was easily accessible; (3) whether the firearm was loaded; and (4) the surrounding circumstances. Id. (citing Pena, 586 F.3d at 113). Evidence of subjective intent might include a showing that a defendant obtained a firearm to protect drugs or proceeds, but even if that evidence is lacking, the jury may infer intent from the objective circumstances. Id. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support Mendoza's conviction on this count too. To establish the nexus between the firearms and the drug crimes, the Government provided evidence showing that both firearms were loaded and located in close proximity to the drugs. The rifle was inside the backpack with the crack cocaine capsules, and the pistol was bound together with the heroin and cash, along with additional ammunition. Moreover, Mendoza had access to these items. The rifle was in the closet in the child's bedroom where he spent the night on more than one occasion and where he was sleeping at the time of the search. The pistol, which was in plain view, was placed on top of a cabinet and could easily be reached by standing on a chair. The Government also offered the testimony of Agent Vidal, who told the jury that firearms were essential in drug trafficking businesses because they promote the continuation of the[] business to maximize earnings. And although there was no evidence that any drug transaction occurred, the jury could -25- rationally infer from this evidence that the firearms could be used by Mendoza to protect the activity reflected by the drugs and money. See Ayala-García, 574 F.3d at 16 (noting that [w]hen guns and drugs are found together and a defendant has been convicted of possession with intent to distribute, the gun . . . may reasonably be considered to be possessed 'in furtherance of' an ongoing drug-trafficking crime); Robinson, 473 F.3d at 400 (finding that evidence was sufficient to show that possession of firearms was in furtherance of a drug crime where firearms were hidden in an accessible place and loaded); see also id. at 399 ([A] sufficient nexus is more readily found in cases where the firearm is in plain view and accessible to the defendant during a drug trafficking offense.). The jury was free to weigh the Government's and Mendoza's versions of the events and, considering the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it reasonably found that Mendoza possessed the firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Thus, his additional attempt to discredit the verdict also falls short. Accordingly, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported Mendoza's convictions on all counts.