Opinion ID: 2996252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lopez’s Sentence Enhancement for Possession

Text: of a Firearm Lopez’s first argument is that the district court committed clear error by applying a two-level increase in his sentence pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) because he was in possession of a firearm when arrested. Application Note 3 to § 2D1.1 provides that the enhancement “should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1, cmt. n.3. The government, therefore, must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant possessed the firearm. United States v. Thomas, 294 F.3d 899, 905-06 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 2000). “Actual possession of the firearm need not be established in order to trigger the enhancement. Instead, proof of constructive possession, that is, that the defendant had the power and the intention to exercise dominion or control of the firearm, is sufficient to warrant the enhanceNos. 02-1493 & 02-1734 9 ment.” Thomas, 294 F.3d at 906 (internal citations omitted). Once possession is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it was clearly improbable that the firearm was possessed in connection with the offense. Harris, 230 F.3d at 1057. There is no question that Lopez did not physically possess the gun when arrested. He was found hiding under clothing in a closet; the gun was in the toilet tank in the bathroom. The issues before us, therefore, are: 1) whether the government proved that Lopez constructively possessed the gun found in the toilet tank; and 2) whether Lopez showed that it was clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the offense.
In United States v. Singleton, this Court upheld application of the sentence enhancement when the defendants were arrested in a home they had transformed into a drug distribution center. United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 1997). Inside that home, police recovered a small arsenal of six weapons, ammunition, and drugs hidden strategically throughout. Id. We held that, while no gun was found in the hands of the defendants when arrested, the sentence enhancement in § 2D1.1(b)(1) still applied because they constructively possessed the guns. Id. We have, likewise, held that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement can be applied when the defendant knows of weapons stored in a drug stash house. United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 764 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, the district court made a factual finding that the Baring Street apartment was a stash house. It was sparsely furnished, containing almost no food, few clothes, and little furniture. In fact, the only furniture consisted of a mattress, a small television, a table (upon which police found drug packing material consistent with that 10 Nos. 02-1493 & 02-1734 in Corral’s possession), and a couple of chairs, one with $14,000 taped to the bottom of it. Police also found over five pounds of marijuana as well as a small quantity of cocaine and a gun hidden in the bathroom. The district court further found that Lopez was a trusted part of this drug operation. He was left in sole possession of the apartment in order to allow Corral entry to pick up the drugs. As the sole occupant of a drug stash house on the day he was arrested, Lopez clearly had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the entire apartment. The gun’s location in the bathroom does not diminish Lopez’s control over it. Lopez claims that he did not know of the gun’s presence and location in the apartment and also asserts that he could not have possessed the gun because he was only in the apartment for the one-time, limited purpose of letting Corral in to pick up the drugs. The district court, however, reasonably chose not to accept Lopez’s testimony and further based application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement on credible evidence demonstrating that Lopez actually lived in the apartment or worked in the residence on prior occasions. We too reject Lopez’s assertion that his presence in the apartment was a one-time deal. Accordingly, we find that Lopez constructively possessed the gun in question.
was connected to the offense The next question is whether it was clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the drug offense. As we have stated, guns found in close proximity to drug activity are presumptively connected to that activity. United States v. Adams, 125 F.3d 586, 597 (7th Cir. 1997). In fact, we have held that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement can be applied when the connection between the gun and the Nos. 02-1493 & 02-1734 11 drugs is only temporal in nature. United States v. Grimm, 170 F.3d 760, 768 (7th Cir. 1999). In United States v. Grimm, we held that it was not clearly improbable to conclude that a connection existed between a gun found in the defendant’s trunk when he was arrested and a drug shipment made with the same car six weeks prior to the arrest. Id. In the case at bar, far more than temporal proximity connects Lopez to the gun found in the bathroom. The apartment was clearly a stash house being used for illicit drug activity. Whether Lopez resided in the apartment or worked there on prior occasions, as the district court found, or whether he was in the apartment for the first time, as he claims, does not affect the connection between the drug activity and the gun. There is no other explanation for the presence of the gun in that apartment than to utilize it in connection with the drug activity taking place inside. Lopez points to nothing that would contradict this strong presumption, and therefore, we find that the district court properly applied the § 2D1.1(b)(1) sentence enhancement. Finally, Lopez’s request that the case be remanded for a determination of his eligibility under USSG § 5C1.2 is denied because we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Lopez possessed a firearm in connection with the offense.