Court Opinion

ID: 2964896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:43.299295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.035551
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2132

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     EDWIN COLON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Valeriano  Diviacchi  and  Diviacchi  Law   Office  on  brief  for
            ____________________       _______________________
        appellant.
            Donald   K.  Stern,   United  States   Attorney,  and   Robert  E.
            __________________                                      __________
        Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __________

                                 ____________________

                                  September 8, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Appellant Edwin Colon was convicted in the
                 ___________

            District of Massachusetts of being a felon in possession of a

            firearm and of  possession of an  unregistered silencer.   We

            address his two challenges.

                 1.  Jury selection
                 __________________

                 Appellant argues the district court committed reversible

            error  when it allowed  the government to  exercise a seventh

            peremptory  challenge in  violation  of  Rule  24(b)  of  the

            Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                 Rule  24(b)  prohibits  granting  additional  peremptory

            challenges  to the government.  New England Enterprises, Inc.
                                            _____________________________

            v. United States, 400 F.2d 58, 68 (1st Cir. 1968).  Thus,  it
            ________________

            was  error for  the  district judge  to  grant an  additional

            challenge to the government.  Yet a reversal  is not in order

            unless the issue was preserved for appeal.  Id.  
                                                        ___

                 In  United States v.  Projansky, 465  F.2d 123  (2d Cir.
                     ___________________________

            1972), the  court explained  what was  required  in order  to

            preserve the issue for appeal.  In that case, the defendants'

            counsel  did object to the government's receipt of additional

            challenges, yet  counsel did  not state  the grounds  for the

            objection or mention Rule 24(b).  Id. at 140.  The court held
                                              ___

            that since counsel had not  alerted the district court to the

            restrictions of  Rule 24(b),  counsel had  not preserved  the

            issue for appeal.  Id.
                               ___

                                         -2-

                 Similarly,  defendant's  counsel here did not  alert the

            judge to the reason for her objection.  She did not cite Rule

            24(b) or argue  that the court lacked authority  to grant the

            additional challenge.   Instead, she only argued  that it was

            "unfair."    This   is  not  sufficient  under   New  England
                                                             ____________

            Enterprises and Projansky.   The judgment of  conviction will
            ___________     _________

            be affirmed.

                 2.  Sentencing
                 ______________

                 Secondly, appellant argues  the district court erred  in

            finding he "used  or possessed" a firearm in  connection with

            another felony (possession  of cocaine with intent  to sell),

            and so  the court should  not have enhanced his  base offense

            level under U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).  

                 The firearm in question--a loaded, .22 caliber revolver-

            -was located in defendant's nightstand in the master bedroom.

            The  district court's conclusion that the loaded revolver was

            kept to protect  the cocaine stored in the  house is reviewed

            for  clear error.   United States  v. Thompson, 32  F.3d 1, 4
                                __________________________

            (1st Cir. 1994).  We find none.  It is reasonable to conclude

            that the  defendant kept  the revolver  in his  nightstand to

            protect his valuables, including  his cocaine, should someone

            break into his home.

                 This court must also determine whether the keeping  of a

            revolver  to protect a supply  of drugs meets the requirement

            of  U.S.S.G.     2K2.1(b)(5)  that  the  firearm be  used  or

                                         -3-

            possessed  "in  connection with"  a  felony.    Review of  an

            interpretation  of  a   Sentencing  Guideline  is  de   novo.
                                                               _________

            Thompson, 32 F.3d at 4.
            ________

                 In United States v. Brewster, 1 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 1993),
                    _________________________

            we examined when a firearm is possessed "in  connection with"

            drug trafficking under U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).  We held  that

            some  nexus  between  the  firearm and  the  other  felony is

            required, but  that the language  of the Guideline  should be

            interpreted  broadly.    Brewster,  1  F.3d  at  54-55.  "The
                                     ________

            combination   of  firearms  and  drugs  is  common,  and  the

            guideline  encompasses the  many  logical links  which  exist

            between the use of firearms and drugs."  Thompson, 32 F.3d at
                                                     ________

            8.

                 Here, a  logical link exists  between the  storing of  a

            large amount of cocaine for  purposes of sale and the keeping

            of a loaded revolver to protect  those drugs from theft.  The

            district court did not commit error when it  enhanced Colon's

            base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).

                 AFFIRMED.
                 _________

                                         -4-