Opinion ID: 7517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 6 Rodriguez first challenges the two-level increase in his offense level for possession of a firearm during a drug offense under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). Noting that the pistol was never displayed during the transaction and was unloaded when discovered by the arresting officers, Rodriguez contends that he never possessed the gun and that it was not connected to the transaction within the meaning of Sec. 2D1.1. 7 The district court's decision to apply Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) is essentially a factual determination reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard. If the weapon was present at the scene of the transaction, the adjustment should be applied unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense. 4 The .25 caliber pistol was readily accessible to Rodriguez during the drug transaction, having been placed on top of an armoire in his bedroom, within a few feet of where Rodriguez revealed the buy money to Garza and where he retreated when the arresting officers arrived. That the weapon was not brandished and was unloaded does not negate a finding of possession under Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). 5 The dispositive factor is the accessibility of the weapon to the defendant. 6 The district court did not clearly err in finding Rodriguez to be in possession of the firearm during the drug transaction. 8 Rodriguez next contends that the court erred in denying him a downward adjustment in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We are not persuaded. The record fully supports this factual finding, based on the conduct of Rodriguez both before and after his entry of the guilty plea and up to the time of sentencing. 7 9 Rodriguez also challenges the district court's conclusion that, for sentencing, the relevant conduct involved 500 grams of cocaine. Although the government and Rodriguez stipulated in the plea agreement that the quantity was 200 grams, the district court is not bound by such stipulations and may with the aid of the presentence report, determine the facts relevant to sentencing. 8 10 The record reflects that the undercover investigators negotiated for the sale of 500 grams of cocaine for either $5,000 or $8,000. The cash flashed to the investigators by Rodriguez and later seized by the arresting officers totaled $11,837, obviously sufficient to cover either price. The supervising officer of the investigation testified that the undercover investigators negotiated for the sale of 500 grams of cocaine. 9 The district court did not clearly err in finding the amount of cocaine involved in the offense was 500 grams. 11 Finally, Rodriguez asserts that the district court erred in denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea, a motion obviously based on the fact that he did not receive the sentence which he had hoped to receive. The court's refusal to follow the plea agreement neither denied Rodriguez due process nor breached the plea agreement. 10 An attitudinal change after learning the consequences of one's plea is not a sufficient basis to justify the withdrawal of the plea after sentencing. 11 12 AFFIRMED.