Opinion ID: 203644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enhancement for firearms trafficking

Text: Marceau next argues that the district court incorrectly applied the four-level enhancement for firearms trafficking, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). We find no error. As relevant here, the enhancement applies if Marceau transported, transferred, or otherwise disposed of two or more firearms to another individual ... and ... knew or had reason to believe that such conduct would result in the transport, transfer, or disposal of a firearm to an individual whose possession or receipt of the firearm would be unlawful; or who intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 13 (2007). The PSR notes that Marceau admitted giving four of the stolen firearms that he took to Vermont to an individual he would not identify. This easily satisfies the transport, transfer, or disposal prong of the Guideline. Thus, it is not surprising that Marceau targets only the second part of the enhancement, arguing that there was no evidence that the individuals to whom he transferred the stolen guns were themselves prohibited persons, or that Marceau knew or had reason to believe they intended to use the guns unlawfully. The district court acknowledged the lack of direct evidence of Marceau's knowledge of the recipients' intent. Instead, the court focused on Marceau's numerous, uncontested pre-robbery statements evincing an intent to steal the firearms, bring them to Vermont, remove the serial numbers and exchange the guns for money to buy drugs. The district court also noted that Marceau's known actions all precisely tracked his stated intent, and found that Marceau probably obliterated the serial numbers from the guns that he transferred to the individual he would not name. From there, the court took into consideration our observation in United States v. Ortiz, 64 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir.1995), that the serial number is obliterated from a gun so that it cannot be traced by law enforcement. The act is thus done in anticipation that the gun will be used in criminal activity, and concluded that Marceau trafficked the weapons within the Guideline's meaning. The government need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Marceau is subject to the trafficking enhancement. United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez, 541 F.3d 19, 31 n. 8 (1st Cir.2008). Moreover, the government is not required to prove that Marceau had specific knowledge of any specific felonious plans on the part of the stolen weapons' recipients. United States v. Molloy, 324 F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir.2003). A sentencing court is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1202 (1st Cir.1993), and draw plausible inferences therefrom, United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1, 39 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 588, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2008). Such evidence may include Marceau's pre- and post-robbery statements. Molloy, 324 F.3d at 41. While Marceau tries to disclaim his statements of intent as mere braggadocio, the fact that he actually followed through on the specific theft, spirited the stolen weapons to Vermont and transferred four of them provides ample reason to reject his version. Here, given the combination of Marceau's pre-robbery statements and his post-robbery actions, there was no error in the district court's application of the trafficking enhancement.