Opinion ID: 2780190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Two-level Firearm Sentencing Enhancement

Text: Defendants were each subject to a two-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines section 2D1.1(b)(1) for the foreseeable presence of a firearm during the drug offense. That guideline applies if a dangerous weapon was possessed during the course of a drug-trafficking offense, provided that the presence of the weapon was known to, or reasonably foreseeable to, the defendant. United States v. Fermin, 771 F.3d 71, 82 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Quiñones-Medina, 553 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2009)). The Alejandro brothers were acquitted of a firearm charge, but were still subject to the two–level enhancement. Severino was not charged with the firearm violation, but was also ultimately subject to the enhancement. Defendants acknowledge the state of the law on this issue, but seek to preserve their claim for Supreme Court review. We review the district court's Sentencing Guidelines interpretation de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Ortiz-Torres, 449 F.3d 61, 77 (1st Cir. 2006). As the law now plainly stands, acquitted conduct, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, . . . may form the basis for a sentencing enhancement. United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 314 (1st Cir. 2006). The district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Eddie and Josué Alejandro brought a vehicle to the pier that had three weapons hidden in a secret compartment. Eddie was arrested with a firearm on his person. -16- Severino similarly was with these other men throughout planning meetings, on the night of the drug deal, and was hired in part to provide additional security. With this record, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Severino also foresaw that a firearm would be present in the course of the offense. F. Recent Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Defendants filed a supplemental brief seeking to reduce their sentences based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective on November 1, 2014, and retroactively reduced most drug quantity base offense levels by two levels. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. app. C. After oral argument, the government replied, conceding that this court should remand to determine whether to reduce Defendants' sentences. District courts may reduce prison terms if the defendant's sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing Commission permits a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) if an amendment, declared retroactive, lowers a defendant's applicable Guidelines range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1). The Sentencing Commission expressly made -17- Amendment 782 retroactive, effective as of November 1, 2015.9 See id. § 1B1.10(d), (e)(1) (2014). When considering a sentence reduction, the district court shall substitute the amended Guidelines range for the initial range and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1)). Defendants' sentences were based on a sentencing range now reduced by Amendment 782. We therefore grant Defendants' unopposed request that we remand their cases back to the district court for a determination of whether and to what extent a sentencing reduction is warranted for that reason.