Court Opinion

ID: 9401089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 00:00:54.455077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.730698
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20338        Document: 00516781237             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                     June 9, 2023
                                      No. 22-20338
                                     ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Arturo Garza, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-298-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Stewart and Dennis, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Arturo Garza, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Garza argues that the
   district court erred at sentencing by applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B),
   which imposes an elevated base offense level if the offense involved in
   relevant part “a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20338         Document: 00516781237              Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-20338

   capacity magazine.”1 Garza also argues the district court erred by applying
   § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which imposes a sentence enhancement if the defendant
   “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another
   felony offense.”2 Because the district court erred in applying both, we vacate
   Garza’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.
                                                 I
          In December 2020, officers with the Houston Police Department
   attempted to arrest Garza on several outstanding warrants. Garza was taken
   into custody after being confronted by officers and fleeing from his vehicle.
   Once back at Garza’s vehicle, officers recovered a semiautomatic pistol; a
   100-round magazine, located in the front passenger seat; 19.92 grams of
   Oxycodone, located in the center console’s cupholder; 7.2 grams of
   marijuana, located in between the driver’s seat and the center console; and a
   ski mask.
          The presentence report (PSR) provided that Garza’s base offense
   level should be elevated to 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) because
   Garza is a “prohibited person” and “the offense involved a semiautomatic
   firearm that had in close proximity a magazine that was capable of accepting
   a large capacity magazine (more than 15 rounds of ammunition) specifically
   100 rounds.” The PSR also recommended a four-level enhancement under
   § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because Garza possessed the firearm in connection with
   another felony offense, specifically “possession of a controlled substance.”
   With a total offense level of 25, and a criminal history category of III, Garza’s
   advisory guidelines range was 70 to 87 months of imprisonment.

          _____________________
          1
              U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I).
          2
              U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

                                                     2
Case: 22-20338        Document: 00516781237              Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                         No. 22-20338

           Garza filed a written objection to the four-level enhancement under
   § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), arguing there was no evidence that he possessed the
   firearm in connection with the offense of felony possession of a controlled
   substance. He did not object to the elevated base offense level under
   § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B).       The Government responded that the enhancement
   applied because of the firearm’s close proximity to the drugs, which
   supported the firearm’s potential of facilitating another felony offense.
   Garza replied that proximity was insufficient for the application of this
   enhancement if the other offense involves drug possession alone. The
   probation officer maintained that the enhancement should apply under this
   court’s precedent.
           At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied Garza’s objection
   to the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because “the firearm
   was present next to the drugs and facilitated possession of the drugs.” The
   district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Garza within the advisory
   guidelines range to 75 months of imprisonment (reduced from 87 months to
   account for the time Garza spent in federal custody), to be served
   concurrently with any state sentence imposed, three years of supervised
   release, and a $100 special assessment. Garza filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                               II
           Garza first argues the district court erred in applying the four-level
   enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in
   connection with another felony offense. Because the district court clarified
   that the other felony offense employed in its enhancement calculus was drug
   possession,3 and because the only evidence offered by the Government as to
           _____________________
           3
             See United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 253 n.16 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that
   “the initial step in evaluating a § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement is to ‘first identify the other

                                                    3
Case: 22-20338           Document: 00516781237                Page: 4      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                               No. 22-20338

   whether Garza possessed the firearm in connection with the alleged drug
   possession was the firearm’s close proximity to the drugs, the district court
   erred in applying the enhancement.
           When, as here, a challenge is preserved, this court reviews the district
   court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo
   and its factual findings for clear error.4 “A district court’s determination that
   a firearm was used or possessed in connection with another felony offense for
   purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is a factual finding that is reviewed
   for clear error.”5 In deciding whether to apply an enhancement, “a district
   court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts, and these
   inferences are fact-findings reviewed for clear error as well.”6 “A factual
   finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible considering the record as a
   whole.”7
           First, Garza argues the district court erred in solely relying on
   proximity and simultaneous possession of a “small amount” of drugs and a
   firearm in a vehicle to apply the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. He argues
   that the cases the PSR relied on, United States v. Washington8 and United
   States v. Condren,9 are no longer good law in light of additions made to

           _____________________
   felony employed in the district court’s enhancement calculus’” (quoting United States v.
   Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1994))).
           4
               United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007).
           5
             United States v. Bass, 996 F.3d 729, 742 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v.
   King, 773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014)).
           6
               United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006).
           7
            United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States
   v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010)).
           8
               340 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2003).
           9
               18 F.3d 1190 (5th Cir. 1994).

                                                        4
Case: 22-20338           Document: 00516781237             Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-20338

   relevant commentary to § 2K2.1. He argues that this court should look
   instead to United States v. Jeffries,10 in which this court explained that under
   § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) there is “no automatic conclusion” that the enhancement
   applies in cases in which the other felony offense is drug possession “just
   because” the firearm and drugs “are located in the same vehicle.”11 The
   Government argues that Jeffries is distinguishable for several reasons. It
   points out that, in Jeffries, the drug quantity was significantly lower than what
   was recovered in this case, and, in this case, the drugs and firearm were in
   close proximity and there was evidence of current or recent drug distribution
   or sales by Garza. The Government argues that these facts support the
   district court’s finding that the firearm facilitated Garza’s drug possession.
   It argues in the alternative that we should affirm because the record supports
   an implicit finding that the other felony offense was drug trafficking because
   Garza had a history of drug distribution, the drug quantity here was not
   consistent with personal use, and Garza claimed only occasional monthly use
   of Oxycodone.
          Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides that the offense level for a firearm
   offense should be increased by four levels if the defendant “used or possessed
   any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.”12 According to
   the commentary, “‘[a]nother felony offense’ . . . means any federal, state, or
   local offense . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,
   regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction
   obtained.”13 In general, the enhancement applies if the firearm facilitated, or

          _____________________
          10
               587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009).
          11
               Id. at 692-93.
          12
               U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
          13
               U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C).

                                                     5
Case: 22-20338           Document: 00516781237             Page: 6      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-20338

   had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense, such as drug
   possession.14 But, specifically when the other felony offense is a drug
   trafficking offense and a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs or drug
   paraphernalia, application of the enhancement is “warranted because the
   presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony
   offense.”15 Thus, in the context of drug trafficking offenses under Note
   14(B), the evidence need not satisfy the facilitation standard applicable under
   Note 14(A) for other types of felony offenses.16 In Jeffries, this court
   explained that the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement “automatically applies” if
   the other felony offense is a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is
   found in close proximity to drugs.17 But the Jeffries court held that Note
   14(A), rather than Note 14(B)(ii), applied to the defendant because he had no
   history of recent drug distribution or sales and he possessed only a single rock
   of crack cocaine.18 Applying Note 14(A), this court determined that the
   Government failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the firearm
   facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the defendant’s drug possession;

           _____________________
           14
              U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A); see also United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 253
   (5th Cir. 2010) (setting out the facilitation test for non-drug-trafficking felonies).
           15
                U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B)(ii).
           16
             See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 147 n.6 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Juarez,
   626 F.3d at 253).
           17
            United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690, 692 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing U.S.S.G.
   § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B)(ii)).
           18
              See id. at 693-95; see also United States v. Eaden, 914 F.3d 1004, 1008-09 & n.2
   (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Note 14(B)(ii) presumption of facilitation applies when
   the other felony offense is drug trafficking but not when the other felony offense is drug
   possession).

                                                     6
Case: 22-20338         Document: 00516781237                Page: 7       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-20338

   thus, the district court there clearly erred in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
   enhancement.19
           Here, the district court clearly erred in finding that the firearm
   facilitated or had the potential of facilitating Garza’s possession of the drugs.
   Garza correctly notes that the cases on which the probation officer relied,
   Washington and Condren, were decided before additions to the relevant
   commentary provided a definition for the phrase “in connection with,”
   setting forth the facilitation standards under Notes 14(A) and 14(B)(ii).20
   Additionally, the other felony employed in the district court’s enhancement
   calculus was drug possession, not drug trafficking. At sentencing, the district
   judge stated that “the firearm was present next to the drugs” and concluded
   this “facilitated possession of the drugs,” abandoning an earlier statement that
   the firearm “potentially facilitat[ed] the crime of possession of illegal drugs
   or possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs.” Although the district court
   also adopted the PSR, the PSR does not allege that Garza possessed the
   firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, but instead, only
   “possession of a controlled substance.”21 Furthermore, no evidence was
   presented that Garza was involved in drug trafficking at the time of the
           _____________________
           19
             Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 695; see also United States v. Sealy, 661 F. App’x 278, 282 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that the enhancement did not apply because
   there was no evidence the defendant was a drug trafficker and no evidence other than
   proximity to the drugs that the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with drug
   possession).
           20
               Compare U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14 (2006), with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (2004). See
   Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 692-93; Juarez, 626 F.3d at 253; U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A) & (B).
           21
              United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (5th Cir. 1994) (explaining that
   the other felony offense was either drug distribution, based on the district court adopting
   the finding in the PSR that “[t]he defendant was in possession of a firearm while involved
   in the distribution of crack/cocaine,” or drug possession, based on the district court’s
   finding at sentencing that the defendant possessed the firearm “at the same time that . . . he
   was possessing controlled substances”).

                                                      7
Case: 22-20338           Document: 00516781237              Page: 8     Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                             No. 22-20338

   instant offense and, in state court, Garza was charged with possession of a
   controlled substance, not with a drug trafficking offense.
           Therefore, the enhancement is proper only if it is plausible in view of
   the record as a whole that Garza’s firearm possession facilitated his alleged
   drug possession under the standard set forth in 14(A).22 Here, the loaded
   firearm was found in plain view on the passenger seat of the vehicle, and the
   drugs were found in the center console and cupholder area; but no other
   evidence of drug trafficking was found. Although the firearm was found in
   close proximity to the drugs in the vehicle, mere proximity is not sufficient
   to support an enhancement under the standard in 14(A).23 The record
   suggests that the district court relied almost exclusively on the gun’s
   proximity to the drugs, as it placed particular emphasis on the photograph of
   the vehicle’s interior. Because the Government merely showed that Garza
   possessed the drugs and firearm at the same time,24 we conclude the district
   court erred in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement.
           Garza further argues that the district court’s error in calculating the
   guidelines range was not harmless. When a significant procedural error
   occurs at sentencing, remand for resentencing is required unless the error

           _____________________
           22
             See Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 693; see also United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128, 134 (5th
   Cir. 2007) (noting that this court may affirm on any basis supported by the record).
           23
               See Eaden, 914 F.3d at 1008-09 & n.2 (“In this circuit, there is . . . no
   presumption of facilitation when the defendant possesses a firearm along with only user
   amounts of narcotics.”); see also Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 693-95; United States v. Ledesma, 750
   F. App’x 344, 347-49 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (vacating the defendant’s sentence
   because the district court’s finding that the defendant’s possession of the gun facilitated
   his drug possession was based only on evidence of simultaneous possession); Sealy, 661 F.
   App’x at 282 (vacating sentence because there was no evidence, other than proximity to
   the drugs, establishing that the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with drug
   trafficking or drug possession).
           24
                See Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 693.

                                                      8
Case: 22-20338           Document: 00516781237               Page: 9      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-20338

   was harmless.25 To establish harmless error, the proponent of the sentence
   must convincingly demonstrate that the sentence would have been the same
   absent the error.26 In the instant case, the Government does not argue that
   the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the alleged
   error. In his reply brief, Garza argues that because the Government did not
   show the error was harmless, it forfeited this argument on appeal. However,
   this court can, in its discretion, consider harmless error sua sponte.27 With
   the enhancement, Garza’s advisory guidelines range was 70 to 87 months of
   imprisonment. Without the enhancement, his total offense level would have
   been 21 and his advisory guidelines range would have been 46 to 57 months
   of imprisonment.28 The district court sentenced Garza to 87 months of
   imprisonment, with credit for 12 months that he spent in federal custody.
   Because the record does not reflect that the district court would have
   imposed the same sentence even if the guidelines range had been 46 to 57
   months of imprisonment, the alleged error is not harmless.29 We therefore
   vacate Garza’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
                                                   III
           Garza also challenges the district court’s application of the elevated
   base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). He argues that the

           _____________________
           25
                United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2009).
           26
                United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 2011).
           27
              See United States v. Groce, 784 F.3d 291, 296 n.2 (5th Cir. 2015), superseded by
   regulation on other grounds as stated in United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 651 (5th Cir.
   2018).
           28
                See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table).
           29
                See Johnson, 648 F.3d at 278-80.

                                                         9
Case: 22-20338         Document: 00516781237               Page: 10      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-20338

   Government presented no evidence demonstrating the firearm and magazine
   were compatible.
          Because Garza did not raise this argument in the district court, this
   court’s review is limited to plain error.30 To show plain error, Garza must
   show the forfeited error is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights.31
   If Garza makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the
   error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.32
          Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) provides for an elevated base offense level of
   20 if the offense involved a “semiautomatic firearm that is capable of
   accepting a large capacity magazine” and the defendant was a “prohibited
   person” at the time of the offense.33 The Sentencing Guidelines commentary
   defines a “semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity
   magazine” as “a semiautomatic firearm that has the ability to fire many
   rounds without reloading because at the time of the offense . . . a magazine or
   similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition” was
   either attached to the firearm or in close proximity to it.34 In United States v.
   Luna-Gonzalez,35 this court determined the Government failed to present
   evidence to meet its burden of showing the large-capacity magazine was
   compatible with the appellant’s firearm.36                      The court found the

          _____________________
          30
               See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          31
               Id.
          32
               Id.
          33
               U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B).
          34
               U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.2.
          35
               34 F.4th 479 (5th Cir. 2022).
          36
               Id. at 480-81

                                                      10
Case: 22-20338          Document: 00516781237             Page: 11       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-20338

   Government’s unsworn response to the appellant’s written objections was
   not sufficient to meet its burden of proof.37 Following Luna-Gonzalez, this
   court has found the Government’s failure to present evidence that the
   firearm and magazine were compatible for purposes of § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)
   constituted plain error, and this court exercised its discretion to correct the
   error.38 In this case, the PSR provided that the elevated base offense level
   was applicable because the semiautomatic firearm was in close proximity to
   a magazine capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. In response to
   Garza’s PSR objections, the Government stated that “the firearm was loaded
   with a 100 round magazine.”                However, the Government’s unsworn
   response was not sufficient to meet its burden of proof,39 and the
   Government did not present evidence to demonstrate the firearm and
   magazine were compatible. The Government concedes on appeal that it did
   not present any evidence in the district court and that the PSR did not state
   that the firearm and magazine were attached or compatible.                         The
   Government also concedes that the photograph of the firearm and magazine
   on the car’s passenger seat does not show whether the firearm and magazine
   were attached or were merely next to each other. Because the Government
   did not present any evidence to demonstrate the firearm and magazine were
   compatible, the district court made a clear and obvious error in imposing the
   elevated base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B).40
          When, as here, “the record is silent as to what the district court might
   have done had it considered the correct Guidelines range, the court’s reliance
          _____________________
          37
               Id. at 480.
          38
             See United States v. Romero, No. 21-50485, 2022 WL 3584873, at *2 (5th Cir.
   Aug. 22, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished).
          39
               See Luna-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th at 480.
          40
               See id. at 480-81; see also Romero, 2022 WL 3584873, at *2.

                                                     11
Case: 22-20338          Document: 00516781237                Page: 12       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                             No. 22-20338

   on an incorrect range in most instances will suffice to show an effect on the
   defendant’s substantial rights.”41 The district court’s error affected Garza’s
   substantial rights because it increased his offense level and his advisory
   guidelines range.42 The Supreme Court has held that “[i]n the ordinary
   case . . . the failure to correct a plain Guidelines error that affects a
   defendant’s substantial rights will seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and
   public reputation of judicial proceedings.”43
           Conceding plain error, the Government asks this court for the
   opportunity to present additional evidence on remand to support the
   application of the elevated base offense level. It asserts that Garza confirmed
   the semiautomatic firearm was loaded when pleading guilty, he did not object
   to the Government’s statement that the firearm was loaded with a 100-round
   magazine, and he did not object to the elevated offense level in the district
   court. As this court explained in United States v. Hernandez,44 the district
   court may consider corrections and additions relevant to the issue on
   remand.45 We therefore remand to the district court with instructions to
   permit the Government to present additional evidence as to whether the
   firearm and magazine found in Garza’s vehicle were compatible.46

           _____________________
           41
                Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 201 (2016).
           42
                See id.; see also Romero, 2022 WL 3584873, at *2.
           43
                Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1911 (2018).
           44
                48 F.4th 367 (5th Cir. 2022).
           45
              Id. at 371-72 (distinguishing United States v. Chem. & Metal Indus., Inc., 677 F.3d
   750, 753 (5th Cir. 2012)).
           46
                See id.; United States v. Carales-Villalta, 617 F.3d 342, 345 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                                       12
Case: 22-20338     Document: 00516781237             Page: 13   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                      No. 22-20338

                                  *        *         *
          We VACATE Garza’s sentence and REMAND to the district court
   for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

                                               13