Court Opinion

ID: 9945396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 20:01:30.304551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.309874
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11479    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11479
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DONALD MATTHEW DELZOPPO,
       a.k.a. Roco,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cr-00022-TKW-MJF-1
USCA11 Case: 23-11479         Document: 32-1          Date Filed: 02/27/2024          Page: 2 of 7

       2                          Opinion of the Court                         23-11479

                                ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Donald Matthew Delzoppo appeals his sentence of 60
       months’ imprisonment for possession with the intent to distribute
       cocaine. Delzoppo argues that the district court: (1) incorrectly ap-
       plied a two-point enhancement for possession of a ﬁrearm under
       U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1); and (2) erred by not applying the safety valve
       because he met the criteria in § 5C1.2(1)–(5). We disagree with
       Delzoppo on both arguments and, therefore, aﬃrm.1
                                               I.
             In reviewing a sentence, we conduct a two-step inquiry, ﬁrst
       ensuring that there was no signiﬁcant procedural error, and then

       1 We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.       Gall
       v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We review the district court’s ﬁndings
       of fact under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error and review de novo the ap-
       plication of the Sentencing Guidelines to those facts. United States v. Pham, 463
       F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006). “For sentencing purposes, possession of a
       ﬁrearm involves a factual ﬁnding.” United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218, 1220
       (11th Cir. 2006). So long as the district court’s ﬁndings are plausible, we will
       not reverse under clear error review. United States v. Ladson, 643 F.3d 1335, 1341
       (11th Cir. 2011).
       A district court’s factual ﬁndings and subsequent denial of safety-valve relief
       are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir.
       1997).
USCA11 Case: 23-11479        Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 02/27/2024       Page: 3 of 7

       23-11479                     Opinion of the Court                         3

       examining whether the sentence was substantively reasonable.
       United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). 2
               The district court commits a signiﬁcant procedural error if
       it calculates the guidelines incorrectly, fails to consider the § 3553(a)
       factors, bases the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, neglects to
       explain the sentence, or treats the guidelines as mandatory rather
       than advisory. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 879 (11th Cir. 2011).
       In general, the district court’s explanation of its sentence must ar-
       ticulate enough to satisfy us that it “considered the parties’ argu-
       ments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal deci-
       sionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
       (2007). The explanation must be adequate “to allow for meaning-
       ful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentenc-
       ing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. The party challenging the sentence has
       the burden of demonstrating the procedural error in light of the
       record and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States
       v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2007).
              The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level enhance-
       ment in drug cases “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a ﬁrearm)
       was possessed.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The commentary for
       § 2D1.1(b)(1) provides that “[t]he enhancement should be applied
       if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the
       weapon was connected with the oﬀense. For example, the en-
       hancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at the

       2 Delzoppo’s arguments are both procedural challenges, so we don’t reach the

       second prong in this case.
USCA11 Case: 23-11479          Document: 32-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024           Page: 4 of 7

       4                           Opinion of the Court                        23-11479

       defendant’s residence, had an unloaded hunting riﬂe in the closet.”
       Id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.11(A)). 3
                The government may meet its initial burden by showing, by
       a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant possessed a
       weapon during conduct related to the oﬀense of conviction. United
       States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 2006). Relevant con-
       duct includes acts that were part of the same course of conduct or
       plan as the oﬀense of conviction. United States v. Hunter, 172 F.3d
       1307, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999). The presence of the weapon cannot be
       merely coincidental, and it must have some purpose or eﬀect with
       respect to the oﬀense. United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1204
       (11th Cir. 2017). We have recognized that proximity between
       weapons and drugs alone is suﬃcient for the government to meet
       its initial burden under § 2D1.1(b)(1). United States v. Carillo-Ayala,
       713 F.3d 82, 91–92 (11th Cir. 2013). Evidence that a defendant used
       or could have used a weapon to protect his criminal activity is also
       suﬃcient to show a connection between the weapon and the of-
       fense and will thus satisfy the government’s burden under
       § 2D1.1(b)(1). See id. at 92.
              If the government meets this initial burden, the burden shifts
       to the defendant, who has the opportunity to show that a connec-
       tion between the weapon and the oﬀense was “clearly

       3 “[C]ommentary in the [Sentencing] Guidelines Manual that interprets or ex-

       plains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal
       statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading, of that guide-
       line.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).
USCA11 Case: 23-11479      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-11479               Opinion of the Court                          5

       improbable.” Stallings, 463 F.3d at 1220. Failure to produce such
       evidence permits a district court to apply the enhancement. United
       States v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62, 63–64 (11th Cir. 1995). The guidelines im-
       pose a heavy burden to negate the connection and show that it is
       clearly improbable. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 90.
               Here, the district court did not err in applying the two-point
       enhancement based on possession of a dangerous weapon. The
       district court found that the gun was located next to Delzoppo’s
       bed, in the same room as 20 grams of cocaine, digital scale, and
       approximately 500 small plastic baggies. This proximity between
       the gun and drugs is suﬃcient for the government to meet its initial
       burden under § 2D1.1(b)(1). Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 91–92.
               Moreover, Delzoppo did not meet his burden of showing
       that the connection between the weapon and his oﬀense conduct
       was “clearly improbable.” Stallings, 463 F.3d at 1220. Rather, as the
       district court noted, “it’s probable and, in fact, likely that this gun
       was possessed in connection with this oﬀense.” Thus, the district
       court did not err in applying the two-point enhancement for pos-
       session of a dangerous weapon and adequately explained its rea-
       soning. Accordingly, we aﬃrm in this respect.
                                         II.
              For an oﬀense violating 21 U.S.C. § 841, the safety-valve pro-
       visions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f ) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 enable a district
       court to disregard the statutory minimum sentence if ﬁve require-
       ments are met. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). Relevant here, the second re-
       quirement for safety-valve relief is that the defendant did not
USCA11 Case: 23-11479         Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                       23-11479

       possess a gun “in connection with the oﬀense.” 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(f )(2); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2). The defendant has the burden
       of showing that he meets the factors for relief by a preponderance
       of the evidence. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 90. 4
              As stated above, our “cases interpreting guidelines that re-
       quire a ‘connection’ have consistently recognized that a ﬁrearm
       which facilitates or has the potential to facilitate an oﬀense is pos-
       sessed ‘in connection with’ that oﬀense.” Id. at 93. We, in consid-
       ering the safety-valve, have held that “[a] ﬁrearm found in close
       proximity to drugs or drug-related items simply ‘has’—without any
       requirement for additional evidence—the potential to facilitate the
       drug oﬀense.” Id. at 92 (emphasis in original). We explained that
       “[a] defendant seeking relief under the safety valve, despite his pos-
       session of a weapon found in proximity to drug-related items, will
       have a diﬃcult task in showing that, even so, there is no connection
       with the drug oﬀense so the safety valve applies.” Id. We further
       explained that:
              [w]hile other facts, such as whether the ﬁrearm is
              loaded, or inside a locked container, might be relevant

       4 We have determined that “not all defendants who receive the enhancement

       under § 2D1.1(b)(1) are precluded from” safety-valve relief. Id. at 91. This is
       due to the distinction in the “clearly improbable” language in § 2D1.1(b)(1)
       and the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for § 5C1.2(a)(2). We noted
       that, if the enhancement applies but the defendant also seeks safety-valve re-
       lief, “the district court must determine whether the facts of the case show that
       a connection between the firearm and the offense, though possible, is not
       probable.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). We also noted that “[t]he number
       of defendants who meet both guidelines will undoubtedly be rare.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11479      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 7 of 7

       23-11479                Opinion of the Court                          7

              to negate a connection, there is a strong presumption
              that a defendant aware of the weapon’s presence will
              think of using it if his illegal activities are threatened.
              The ﬁrearm’s potential use is critical. The Sentencing
              Commission gives special status to guns found in
              proximity to drugs.

       Id. (emphasis in original).
               Here, the district court did not clearly err in ﬁnding that Del-
       zoppo did not qualify for the safety valve because the ﬁrearm was
       in close proximity to the drug paraphernalia, and he failed to show
       that it was more likely than not that he did not possess a ﬁrearm in
       connection with the oﬀense. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 92. Although
       Delzoppo did not carry the ﬁrearm when he purchased the cocaine,
       the ﬁrearm still had the potential to facilitate the oﬀense because it
       was stored near paraphernalia Delzoppo would likely use to dis-
       tribute it. Id. at 96. The district court reasonably found that the
       gun was connected to the oﬀense. Accordingly, we also aﬃrm in
       this respect.
              AFFIRMED.