Opinion ID: 790214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ceballos-Torres Factors in Instruction

Text: 46 Mr. Duran next argues that the jury instructions on the in furtherance of element of the § 924(c)(1)(A) charge in Count 9 were erroneous, confusing and warrant reversal. Jury instructions are viewed as a whole and `[i]f the instructions are adequately supported by the record and are fair and accurate summaries of the law, the instructions will not be disturbed on appeal.' Folks, 236 F.3d at 388-89 (citation omitted). 47 The relevant portion of the instructions stated: 48 Possession of a firearm is in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime if the possession assists in furthering, advancing or helping the drug-trafficking crime. 49 The mere presence of a firearm at a location is not sufficient to find that the firearm was possessed in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime but can be considered along with other factors. Some factors that you may consider in determining whether a firearm possession was in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime include but are not limited to, [1] the type of firearm, [2] whether the firearm was stolen, [3] whether the firearm possession was legitimate or illegal, [4] whether the firearm was loaded, [5] the accessibility of the firearm, [6] the proximity of the firearm to drugs, drug profits or materials used for drug trafficking, [7] the type of drug activity that is being conducted, and [8] the time and circumstances under which the firearm was found. 50 Tr. at 900. The eight factors listed are taken from Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d at 414-15. Mr. Duran argues that [t]he Ceballos-Torres factors take the jury in the wrong direction. The key inquiry should be the relationship between the firearm and the drug activity. Neither the nature of the drug activity nor the legality of possession of the firearm alone are relevant to whether a firearm is used in furtherance. Thus, factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are misleading and not probative to the connection between possession and drug trafficking that the statute demands. Appellant's Br. at 45. 51 A number of circuits, including this one, have adopted the Ceballos-Torres factors, or a substantially similar list, as helpful considerations in the in furtherance of calculus. See Castillo, 406 F.3d at 815, 2005 WL 1023029, at ; United States v. Sparrow, 371 F.3d 851, 853-54 (3d Cir.2004); Gaston, 357 F.3d at 83; Suarez, 313 F.3d at 1293; United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.2002); United States v. Basham, 268 F.3d 1199, 1208 (10th Cir.2001); Mackey, 265 F.3d at 462. However, we have cautioned, as did the Ninth Circuit recently, that these factors cannot form a checklist because this arena must be governed by a common-sense inquiry into whether the gun and drug-trafficking offense have been tied together such that a jury could conclude the former was possessed to advance the latter. See Castillo, 406 F.3d at 815, 2005 WL 1023029, at ; United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.2004). 52 The Count 9 instructions reflected this approach: They did not cast the Ceballos-Torres factors as a checklist but as [s]ome factors the jury may consider in its in furtherance of calculus. Moreover, we cannot accept the notion that these factors are inherently misleading or unhelpful. In cases such as this one, where the Government's in furtherance of theory is one of protection (i.e., the gun was possessed in furtherance of the conspiracy by protecting the drug dealer, his stash and/or his territory), the Ceballos-Torres factors Mr. Duran identifies, and the factors as a whole, can help the jury to distinguish between a gun possessed for reasons unrelated to drug-trafficking activity and one possessed in furtherance of that activity. For example, jurors are not required to ignore the common-sense notion that a drug dealer who possesses a sawed-off shotgun with the serial number filed off during the course of a drug-distribution conspiracy likely was not possessing the weapon for pheasant hunting or gun-collection shows. See Suarez, 313 F.3d at 1293 (explaining, in rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on the in furtherance of element, that [t]wo of the firearms were illegally shortened and [n]one of the weapons was of a type typically used for legal purposes, such as hunting). Moreover, jurors are entitled to consider that illegally possessed, loaded weapons at the headquarters of a drug-distribution conspiracy strategically located so that [they were] quickly and easily available for use are likely to be possessed as part of that conspiracy. Gaston, 357 F.3d at 83 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But see Krouse, 370 F.3d at 968. 53 Of course, in particular cases, the inferences flowing from the factors will be less forceful, and the defendant can attempt to rebut such inferences before the jury. Nevertheless, assigning proportionate weight, if any, to these factors is the province of the jury. See Suarez, 313 F.3d at 1293 (explaining that [t]he jury rejected the defendant's story that he had legally purchased guns over several years as a collector and it was within its purview to do so). We need to hold only that these factors are valid and can be used as part of the in furtherance of instructions, which we do. 54 Finally, we note that Mr. Duran's argument that the instructions erroneously focused on possession and the legitimacy of the possession is diminished further by the fact that, prior to the rendition of the Ceballos-Torres factors in the instructions, the jury was given a correct definition of in furtherance of and admonished that mere possession of a firearm at a drug scene is not enough. Given these factors, we hold the instructions, considered as a whole, were proper. In so holding, we join the Tenth Circuit, which approved almost identical instructions and rejected an almost identical challenge in Basham, 268 F.3d at 1207-08.