United States v. Fitzpatrick, 67 F.4th 497

In August–September 2018 an MDEA confidential informant (CI) made controlled buys of methamphetamine from Derek Fitzpatrick; on September 11 the CI bought 111.5 g and reported seeing a handgun in the pickup’s door pocket during the sale.
On September 28 agents executed warrants at Fitzpatrick’s residence and the Littleton garage/truck: they seized ~1,992 g meth from the residence and ~20.28 g from a ‘‘slate colored’’ GMC pickup, plus two handguns (one loaded in the driver’s door pocket), cash, and drug paraphernalia.
Fitzpatrick was indicted on multiple meth-distribution counts, pleaded guilty, and the PSR attributed 3.4 kg meth, yielding a base offense level 32 and, after adjustments, a guideline range tied to a 10‑year mandatory minimum.
At sentencing Fitzpatrick sought safety‑valve relief (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); USSG §5C1.2); the sole contested statutory requirement was whether he had ‘‘possess[ed] a firearm . . . in connection with the offense.’’
The district court credited the CI, found a firearm was present in the truck during the September 11 sale and that it was possessed in connection with the drug offense, denied safety‑valve relief, and imposed a 120‑month sentence.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding the factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that the firearm’s presence near the transaction constituted possession ‘‘in connection with’’ relevant conduct blocking safety‑valve relief.

Issue	Government's Argument	Fitzpatrick's Argument	Held
Whether a handgun was present in Fitzpatrick’s truck during the Sept. 11 transaction	CI’s near‑contemporaneous written report described a handgun in the door pocket; later search found a gun in that same location, corroborating the CI	CI’s account was inaccurate — transaction occurred inside the garage, wrong truck color, and there was no gun in the truck at the time	Court credited the CI; record supported the finding; not clearly erroneous
Whether possession of the firearm was "in connection with" the offense (safety‑valve eligibility)	Gun was visible and in close proximity during the sale, thus readily available to protect person/drugs and could facilitate trafficking; relevant conduct doctrine ties the Sept. 11 sale to the count carrying the mandatory minimum	Even if a gun was present, it did not facilitate or was not intended to facilitate the transaction; guns found Sept. 28 were not part of the Sept. 11 sale or connected to the larger seizure	Presence and visibility during the transaction supported inference the weapon could facilitate the offense; relevant‑conduct rules make this dispositive for safety‑valve ineligibility

United States v. McLean, 409 F.3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) (safety‑valve relief scope for first‑time drug offenders)
United States v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2006) (burden to prove safety‑valve elements by preponderance)
United States v. Matos, 328 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2003) (standard of review for safety‑valve factual findings)
United States v. Stark, 499 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2007) (safety‑valve elements explained)
United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (CI’s detail and first‑hand description bear on reliability)
United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562 (1st Cir. 1996) (prior reliable CI conduct supports later reports)
United States v. Corcimiglia, 967 F.2d 724 (1st Cir. 1992) (firearm located where it could be used to protect drugs supports inference of connection)
United States v. Leanos, 827 F.3d 1167 (8th Cir. 2016) (firearm has potential to facilitate drug offense)
United States v. Wilson, 106 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir. 1997) (possession of firearm during related drug transactions can preclude safety‑valve even if not during the conviction’s specific transaction)
United States v. Martinez, 9 F.4th 24 (1st Cir. 2021) (relevant conduct includes same course of conduct/common scheme for grouped counts)