Court Opinion

ID: 9892415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 19:00:36.403404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:19.631146
License: Public Domain

In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                For the Seventh Circuit
                    ____________________
No. 22-3070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                v.

ROBERTO PRIETO,
                                             Defendant-Appellant.
                    ____________________

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the
           Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
       No. 1:21-CR-00452(1) — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.
                    ____________________

   ARGUED OCTOBER 3, 2023 — DECIDED OCTOBER 23, 2023
               ____________________

   Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM. Roberto Prieto appeals his 120-month sen-
tence for unlawfully possessing ﬁrearms. In computing the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court im-
posed two four-level enhancements: one for traﬃcking ﬁre-
arms to a person whose possession of which Prieto knew or
had reason to believe would be unlawful, and another be-
cause his oﬀense conduct involved eight ﬁrearms. Because the
2                                                    No. 22-3070

sentencing record supports the district court’s application of
the enhancements, we aﬃrm.
                         I. Background
   Prieto, a convicted felon, sold ﬁrearms. During 2020 and
2021, Prieto arranged several ﬁrearms transactions to a conﬁ-
dential source. Some transactions resulted in completed sales;
others did not.
   The ﬁrst transaction resulted in a completed sale, which
involved a shotgun and occurred on June 27, 2020. During this
transaction, the conﬁdential source informed Prieto that he
was on parole and even suggested that he had outstanding
warrants.
    The second transaction, however, did not result in a sale.
On July 18, 2020, Prieto texted the conﬁdential source a pic-
ture of a Rugar pistol and oﬀered to sell it for $800. In the
meantime, Prieto was arrested for a parole violation; thus, no
sale took place. Prieto remained incarcerated until May 2021.
   After his release from prison, Prieto reinitiated contact
with the conﬁdential source. On July 6, 2021, Prieto texted the
conﬁdential source a picture of two Glock pistols, which he
oﬀered to sell for $2,200. This sale, however, also did not hap-
pen because the pistols were transferred to someone else.
   About a week later, Prieto sold two ﬁrearms to the conﬁ-
dential source. And the following day, Prieto sold two more
ﬁrearms to the conﬁdential source, who was accompanied by
an undercover agent. After the sale, law enforcement arrested
Prieto.
   Prieto pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawfully pos-
sessing a ﬁrearm as a felon in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
No. 22-3070                                                   3

    The probation oﬃce prepared a presentence investigation
report (“PSR”) that recommended applying two four-level en-
hancements to Prieto’s base oﬀense level. According to the
PSR, the ﬁrst enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), regarding
“traﬃcking” ﬁrearms, applied because Prieto transferred two
or more ﬁrearms to the conﬁdential source and knew or had
reason to believe the conﬁdential source was an individual
whose possession of the ﬁrearms would be unlawful. And the
second enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B), regarding rel-
evant conduct, applied because Prieto’s conduct involved
eight ﬁrearms. The PSR also applied a two-level enhancement
for obstruction-of-justice. With these enhancements, the PSR
calculated Prieto’s total oﬀense level at 29 and his criminal
history category at V, yielding a guidelines range of 140 to 175
months’ imprisonment.
    At sentencing, Prieto contested the application of each en-
hancement. Regarding the ﬁrearms-traﬃcking enhancement
under § 2K2.1(b)(5), Prieto argued the government did not
prove that the conﬁdential source actually was on parole, or
that he, Prieto, had reason to believe the source remained on
parole when he transferred multiple guns to the source in July
2021. As for the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B), Prieto
argued that he should not be held accountable for eight ﬁre-
arms because—for three of them—he merely oﬀered (but
failed) to sell them to the conﬁdential source.
   The district court rejected Prieto’s arguments regarding
the four-level enhancements. It concluded that the record
supported the enhancement for traﬃcking ﬁrearms because
Prieto believed that he was transferring ﬁrearms to a person
on parole. The court then found that Prieto’s conduct in-
volved eight ﬁrearms, deeming it “suﬃcient that he
4                                                    No. 22-3070

indicate[d] that he has or will have possession of the speciﬁc
number of weapons.” (The court sustained Prieto’s objection
to the two-level enhancement for obstruction-of-justice.) Con-
sequently, the court determined that Prieto had a total oﬀense
level of 27 and a criminal history category of V, resulting in a
guidelines range of 120–150 months. Ultimately, the court
sentenced Prieto to 120 months in prison.
                          II. Analysis
    On appeal, Prieto renews his challenges to the application
of the four-level enhancements under §§ 2K2.1(b)(5) and
2K2.1(b)(1)(B). We review de novo the district court’s applica-
tion of the guidelines range calculation. United States v. Porraz,
943 F.3d 1099, 1102 (7th Cir. 2019). We review for clear error
the district court’s factual determinations underlying the ap-
plication of the Guidelines—speciﬁcally, the factual determi-
nation at issue here regarding the number of ﬁrearms in-
volved in an oﬀense. United States v. Burnett, 37 F.4th 1235,
1239 (7th Cir. 2022). A district court need ﬁnd only, by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence, that the facts are suﬃcient to sup-
port an enhancement. United States v. Griﬃn, 76 F.4th 724, 751
(7th Cir. 2023).
   “When interpreting a speciﬁc provision of the sentencing
guidelines, we ‘begin with the text of the provision and the
plain meaning of the words in the text.’” United States v. Cook,
850 F.3d 328, 332 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Hill,
645 F.3d 900, 907–08 (7th Cir. 2011)).
A. Firearms Traﬃcking
    Prieto contends that the district court erred in applying the
sentencing enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(5), which provides
a four-level increase to the oﬀense level “[i]f the defendant
No. 22-3070                                                 5

engaged in the traﬃcking of ﬁrearms.” Application Note
13(A) to § 2K2.1(b)(5) clariﬁes that the ﬁrearms-traﬃcking en-
hancement applies if the defendant:
      (i)     transported, transferred, or otherwise
              disposed of two or more ﬁrearms to an-
              other individual, or received two or more
              ﬁrearms with the intent to transport,
              transfer, or otherwise dispose of ﬁrearms
              to another individual; and
      (ii)    knew or had reason to believe that such
              conduct would result in the transport,
              transfer, or disposal of a ﬁrearm to an in-
              dividual—
              (I)    whose possession or receipt of the
                     ﬁrearm would be unlawful; or
              (II)   who intended to use or dispose of
                     the ﬁrearm unlawfully.
   Application Note 13(B) further states:
      “Individual whose possession or receipt of the
      ﬁrearm would be unlawful” means an individ-
      ual who (i) has a prior conviction for a crime of
      violence, a controlled substance oﬀense, or a
      misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; or (ii)
      at the time of the oﬀense was under a criminal
      justice sentence, including probation, parole,
      supervised release, imprisonment, work re-
      lease, or escape status.
6                                                     No. 22-3070

    Prieto ﬁrst argues that the government had to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the conﬁdential source ac-
tually was on parole at the time. He relies on the Tenth Cir-
cuit’s opinion in United States v. Francis, 891 F.3d 888, 896–98
(10th Cir. 2018). Given the “reason to believe” language in the
application note, however, we agree with the government that
the conﬁdential source need not actually be a prohibited per-
son. See, e.g., United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856, 870 (6th Cir.
2016) (“[T]he agent need not have actually been a felon for
§2K2.1(b)(5) to apply. The Guidelines merely require [the de-
fendant] to have ‘had reason to believe’ that [the transferee’s]
‘possession or receipt of the ﬁrearm would be unlawful.’”);
United States v. Fields, 608 Fed. App’x 806, 813 (11th Cir. 2015)
(holding that the guidelines only require that the defendant
had reason to believe that the transferee could not possess
ﬁrearms lawfully).
    Prieto next maintains that he did not know or have reason
to believe that the conﬁdential source was on parole during
the sale of multiple ﬁrearms. Prieto concedes he knew that the
conﬁdential source was on parole during the ﬁrearm sale in
June 2020 but denies having reason to believe that the conﬁ-
dential source remained on parole during the sales in July
2021, especially because the conﬁdential source said nothing
further at the time about still being on parole. Thus, Prieto
contends, the district court erred in applying the ﬁrearms-
traﬃcking enhancement.
   The record evidence here is suﬃcient to show that Prieto
“had reason to believe” the conﬁdential source remained on
parole during the ﬁrearm sales in July 2021. Although the con-
ﬁdential source did not reiterate his status as a parolee, noth-
ing in the record suggests that the source’s status may have
No. 22-3070                                                    7

changed during the 13 months between the ﬁrst and second
ﬁrearm sales. Indeed, each sale occurred in the same manner:
Prieto arranged cash transactions in exchange for ﬁrearms af-
ter texting about the transaction. And Prieto would have
known from his own ﬁrsthand experience with the criminal
justice system that terms of parole can span years. On these
facts, the district court did not err in applying the ﬁrearms-
traﬃcking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).
B. Number of Weapons
    Prieto next argues that the district court erred in determin-
ing, for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(1), that he traﬃcked eight ﬁre-
arms instead of ﬁve. Section 2K2.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing
Guidelines provides incremental increases to a defendant’s
oﬀense level based on the number of ﬁrearms associated with
his crimes of conviction (i.e., the higher the quantity of ﬁre-
arms, the greater the oﬀense level). As relevant here,
§ 2K2.1(b)(1) directs district courts to increase by four levels
the oﬀense level of a defendant convicted of unlawful posses-
sion of a ﬁrearm if the oﬀense involved 8 to 24 ﬁrearms. But if
the oﬀense involved 3 to 7 ﬁrearms, the oﬀense level only in-
creases by two levels.
    Prieto concedes that his oﬀenses involved ﬁve ﬁrearms but
argues that the government failed to produce suﬃcient evi-
dence to support a ﬁnding that eight ﬁrearms were involved
in his oﬀenses. Speciﬁcally, he contends that the government
failed to prove he unlawfully sought to obtain the three ﬁre-
arms that he oﬀered (but failed) to sell to the conﬁdential
source.
8                                                   No. 22-3070

    In determining the number of ﬁrearms, the court may con-
sider all ﬁrearms that were “involved in the same course of
conduct or common scheme or plan as the oﬀense of convic-
tion.” United States v. Burnett, 37 F.4th 1235, 1238–39 (7th Cir.
2022). Application Note 5 to Subsection (b)(1) speciﬁes that
“only those ﬁrearms that were unlawfully sought to be ob-
tained, unlawfully possessed, or unlawfully distributed”
should be counted for purposes of this Guideline.
    Here, suﬃcient evidence in the record supports the ﬁnd-
ing that Prieto’s oﬀenses included the three ﬁrearms that he
oﬀered (but failed) to sell to the conﬁdential source. Prieto
sold the conﬁdential source a ﬁrearm in June 2020. Prior to
that ﬁrst sale, he texted the conﬁdential source and sent pic-
tures of the ﬁrearm. Each ﬁrearm sale occurred in the same
manner: Prieto sent pictures of the ﬁrearms to the conﬁdential
source and arranged a meeting to complete the sale. Prieto en-
gaged in this same course of conduct for the three ﬁrearms
that he ultimately did not sell to the conﬁdential source. The
sales of the three ﬁrearms were not completed because of two
reasons: (1) Prieto was arrested before the sale of one of the
ﬁrearms was completed; (2) despite oﬀering to sell two ﬁre-
arms to the conﬁdential source, those ﬁrearms were trans-
ferred to someone else. The evidence is more than suﬃcient
to infer Prieto sought to obtain these three ﬁrearms. On these
facts, the district court did not err in applying § 2K2.1(b)(1).
See United States v. Birk, 453 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“While the Guidelines caution against speculative ﬁndings,
they also emphasize the need to consider intended conduct as
well as completed conduct.” (quotation omitted)).
                        III. Conclusion
    For these reasons, we aﬃrm Prieto’s sentence.