756 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2014Background
- March 14, 2012: Owner of a lechonera reported seeing a man (the “other suspect”) with a silver gun; provided a description and vehicle plate (burgundy Suzuki SX4). Guzmán was one of two men who had visited the lechonera.
- Police located and detained two matching suspects at a Church’s Chicken near Rexville Shopping Center; Officer Mojica observed a black pistol protruding from Guzmán’s waistband as Guzmán stood in line.
- Guzmán left the line, briefly entered a bathroom, and upon exit was detained; Mojica later found a black Smith & Wesson .40 in the diaper changing station in that bathroom. A silver Beretta was recovered from the vehicle’s glove compartment.
- Indictment charged Guzmán on two counts: (1) felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and (2) possession of a firearm in a school zone (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A), 924(a)(4)). Jury convicted on both counts; district court sentenced him to 60 months.
- On appeal Guzmán challenged (a) admission of evidence concerning the Beretta found in the car, (b) sufficiency of evidence for both counts, and (c) reasonableness of sentence. The First Circuit affirmed count one, reversed count two, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Guzmán’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Beretta found in vehicle | Beretta was irrelevant to the charged firearm and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401/403; mistrial warranted | Evidence completed the factual narrative and corroborated that each suspect had a different gun; limiting instructions would mitigate prejudice | Admission not an abuse of discretion; relevant and not unfairly prejudicial given curative jury instructions (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency to prove knowing possession under § 922(g)(1) | Mojica’s testimony was insufficient and conflicted with other officers; Guzmán denied possession | Mojica observed pistol on Guzmán, Guzmán entered bathroom and exited without it, bathroom search found pistol where Guzmán was last alone; surveillance corroborated movement | Evidence (including circumstantial) was sufficient to support constructive possession (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency to prove knowledge of being in a school zone under § 922(q)(2)(A) | Proximity to school (stipulated <1000 ft) insufficient to show Guzmán knew or reasonably should have known he was in a school zone | The school was visible from Church’s Chicken and measured at less than 300 feet | Reversed: proximity alone failed to establish defendant’s knowledge; government needed additional proof (reversed) |
| Sentence procedural/substantive reasonableness | Argued sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable | Government sought a higher term; district court varied based on criminal history and offense nature | Not addressed on merits because conviction for school-zone count vacated; case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 717 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and Rule 29 denials)
- Candelaria-Silva v. United States, 162 F.3d 698 (1st Cir. 1998) (Rule 401 relevance principles and probative value)
- Sepúlveda v. United States, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (curative jury instructions can dispel prejudice from improper testimony)
- Wight v. United States, 968 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir. 1992) (constructive possession requires power and intent to exercise dominion or control)
- Robinson v. United States, 473 F.3d 387 (1st Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence of opportunity can establish constructive possession)
- Haywood v. United States, 363 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2004) (proximity alone insufficient to prove knowledge of school-zone for § 922(q) conviction)
- Nieves-Castaño v. United States, 480 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2007) (evidence of defendant’s regular presence near schools supports knowledge of nearby schools)