Opinion ID: 2831116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conspiracy to Possess Firearms (Count 30)

Text: For the Defendants' last sufficiency challenge, they urge that they were improperly convicted of conspiring to possess firearms because none of the guns that were introduced or mentioned at trial actually belonged to La ONU. 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) provides that [a] person who conspires to commit an offense under [18 U.S.C. § 924(c)] shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if the firearm is a machinegun or destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or muffler, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or life. And 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) provides a minimum imprisonment term for any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or . . . in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm. The Defendants argue that there was no evidence presented that they used or carried firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime, and that mere presence of a firearm in an area where a criminal act occurs does not suffice. See United States v. Bobadilla-Pagán, 747 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 2014). Again, the Defendants miss the mark. For - 29 - purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), we have understood 'in furtherance of' to demand [a] showing [of] a sufficient nexus between the firearm and the drug crime [or crime of violence] such that the firearm advances or promotes the drug crime [or crime of violence]. United States v. Gurka, 605 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, even if the guns put into evidence during the trial did not belong to the Defendants, the jury heard evidence that all the Defendants carried firearms and/or supplied them to the organization from 2008 to 2011. And the jury could easily conclude that given La ONU's mission to protect its drug territory, and its tendency to do so through gun violence, the firearms that drug point owners carried or provided to other members either advanced or promoted their drug-trafficking businesses. Thus, that no weapons were ever seized directly from Laureano-Salgado or Ramírez-Rivera is of no consequence when it comes to our sufficiency analysis -- [t]estimony from even just one witness can support a conviction. Negrón-Sostre, 790 F.3d at 307 (internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, we find that the evidence was abundantly sufficient to convict the Defendants of the contested crimes.