Court Opinion

ID: 9959217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 00:00:43.408239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.281789
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50607           Document: 55-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/10/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-50607
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                  April 10, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

David Madrid,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:23-CR-47-1
                  ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      David Madrid was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute actual methamphetamine and sentenced within the advisory
guidelines range to 210 months of imprisonment and three years of
supervised release.        On appeal, he contends that the district court’s
assessment of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for
      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50607       Document: 55-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/10/2024

                                 No. 23-50607

possession of a dangerous weapon was error, as the evidence was insufficient
to attribute knowledge or foreseeability of his co-defendant Hanna Rodgers’s
firearm to him. Because Madrid preserved the error, we review the district
court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for
clear error. See United States v. Barry, 978 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 2020).
       Section 2D1.1(b)(1) establishes a two-level enhancement for those
convicted of a drug-trafficking offense “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a
firearm) was possessed[.]” § 2D1.1(b)(1). The Government must prove
possession of a weapon by a preponderance of the evidence, which it can do
in two ways. United States v. Sincleair, 16 F.4th 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2021).
Relevant here, “when another individual involved in the commission of an
offense possessed the weapon, the Government must show that the
defendant could have reasonably foreseen that possession.” United States v.
Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 765 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “[B]ecause firearms are tools of the trade of
those engaged in illegal drug activities, a district court may ordinarily infer
that a defendant should have foreseen a co-defendant’s possession of a
dangerous weapon, such as a firearm,” where “the government
demonstrates that another participant knowingly possessed the weapon while
he and the defendant committed the offense by jointly engaging in concerted
criminal activity involving a quantity of narcotics sufficient to support an
inference of an intent to distribute.” United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d
388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under this standard, and contrary to Madrid’s assertions, the fact that
a defendant may not have known about a co-defendant’s firearm is irrelevant.
See, e.g., United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 285-86 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 559 (5th Cir. 1996).
       The unrebutted facts in the record support the district court’s finding
that Rodgers’s possession of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Madrid

                                      2
Case: 23-50607       Document: 55-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/10/2024

                                 No. 23-50607

and that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was appropriate.              Both the
presentence report and the factual basis confirm that Madrid and Rodgers,
who were in a romantic relationship and owned a business together, were
engaged in jointly undertaken drug-trafficking involving a significant quantity
of drugs at the time and place that the gun was found, immediately following
a controlled purchase by a confidential informant (the proceeds of which
were found in Madrid’s pocket) and while the informant negotiated a second
purchase of a larger quantity of methamphetamine. The firearm was found
in the same nightstand as some of the methamphetamine to which Madrid
pleaded guilty, and Rodgers knowingly possessed the gun in connection with
their jointly undertaken drug-trafficking activity. The district court could
plausibly infer, on this record, that Rodgers’s possession of a gun was
reasonably foreseeable to Madrid.         See Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d at 390;
Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 765-66.
       AFFIRMED.

                                      3