Opinion ID: 2312412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sentencing Enhancement for Possession of a Firearm

Text: Batista argues that the District Court improperly applied a two-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. The imposition of a sentencing enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) involves questions of fact that we review for clear error. United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1188 (2d Cir.1993) (The sentencing court's finding that a firearm was possessed in connection with a drug offense for purposes of § 2D1.1 will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.). In order for a defendant's projected Guidelines sentence to be enhanced under § 2D1.1(b)(1), `[t]he defendant need not have had personal possession, or even actual knowledge of the weapon's presence; the enhancement is required so long as the possession of the firearm was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.' United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667, 677 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Stevens, 985 F.2d at 1188) ( abrogated on other grounds by Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998)). Accordingly, if one member of a narcotics conspiracy possessed a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy, the other members of the conspiracy who reasonably could have foreseen such possession are chargeable with possession under § 2D1.1(b)(1). United States v. Soto, 959 F.2d 1181, 1186-87 (2d Cir.1992). Batista argues that imposition of a sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm is inappropriate because a firearm was not found in physical proximity to him, and because Hiciano never informed him that a member of the narcotics conspiracy possessed a firearm. This argument is unavailing. As we have recognized in the past, to substantial dealers in narcotics, firearms are as much tools of the trade as are the commonly recognized articles of narcotics paraphernalia. United States v. Crespo, 834 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir.1987); see also United States v. Bermudez, 529 F.3d 158, 170 (2d Cir.2008) (It is axiomatic that drug dealing and guns go hand in hand.). Although a physical nexus between the defendant and the firearm is often useful in determining possession, such a nexus is by no means required in order for a court to impose the enhancement. Rather, courts should determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidenceincluding evidence relating to a defendant's specialized knowledge regarding the activities of drug gangspossession of a firearm in connection with the offense was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. As the District Court found, Batista was an experienced narcotics detective with the NYPD, who had conducted extensive undercover operations infiltrating illegal narcotics operations, and who was well aware that drug dealers are often armed. United States v. Batista ( Batista III ), 732 F.Supp.2d 82, 98 (E.D.N.Y.2010). Batista knew the general size and scope of Hiciano's drug ring, and he could easily have foreseen that someone would possess a firearm in relation to the illegal activities of the ring. Indeed, Hiciano himself kept a firearm in an apartment in 441 Wilson Avenue [16] in order to protect his drug trade. Although no evidence was adduced to show that Hiciano had expressly told Batista that he or one of his associates possessed a firearm, the District Court did not err, much less commit clear error, when it found that it was reasonably foreseeable to Batista that a firearm would be used in the course of the conspiracy. Id. at 96.