United States v. Guzman-Aviles
663 F. App'x 674
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Angel Guzman-Aviles pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50 grams methamphetamine and received a base offense level of 38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).
- PSR reduced two levels for acceptance of responsibility but added a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon, yielding an advisory range of 235–293 months; sentenced to 235 months.
- Enhancement was based on testimony from Felix Leal, a purchaser/reseller who testified he obtained multiple pounds weekly from Guzman-Aviles and that, on one occasion, he gave Guzman-Aviles a .45 Ruger as $1,000 credit toward drug debt.
- Guzman-Aviles objected, arguing Leal’s testimony did not establish the required temporal and spatial nexus between the firearm and drug-trafficking activity (citing Castro-Perez).
- District court found Leal credible, concluded the gun transfer occurred during a drug transaction (given Leal dealt with Guzman-Aviles only in drug transactions), applied § 2D1.1(b)(1), and denied safety-valve relief.
- On appeal, Guzman-Aviles argued the enhancement was unsupported; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding the government proved by a preponderance that a temporal and spatial relation existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guzman-Aviles) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) dangerous-weapon enhancement applies | Leal’s testimony doesn’t show the firearm was physically near or exchanged during a drug transaction; insufficient temporal/spatial nexus | Leal testified he dealt with defendant only for drug transactions and gave the gun during one such meeting, supporting the required nexus | Enhancement proper: court may infer the gun transfer occurred during a drug exchange and nexus proven by preponderance |
| Whether safety-valve relief under § 5C1.2(a)(2) was available | Deny enhancement => could qualify for safety-valve; enhancement unsupported so relief should apply | Because defendant accepted the pistol during a drug deal, he actively possessed a firearm and is ineligible | Denial of safety-valve relief correct because defendant possessed a firearm in connection with offense |
| Standard of review for enhancement findings | De novo because facts allegedly undisputed and insufficient as a matter of law | Clear error applies to district court’s factual finding | Court did not decide definitively because affirmance warranted under either standard |
| Whether record supports inferring every meeting involved transfer of drugs (vs. payments) | Leal may have meant some meetings were only for payment, so gun could be payment unrelated to a present drug transfer | Leal’s testimony of daily/near-daily meetings and multi-pound weekly supply supports that transfers occurred at meetings, including the one when the gun was given | Inference that the gun was exchanged during a drug transaction is reasonable and supported by Leal’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castro-Perez, 749 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2014) (discusses need for temporal and spatial relation between weapon and drug activity)
- United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2005) (government must prove temporal and spatial relation by preponderance)
- United States v. Heckard, 238 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2001) (firearm must be located near site of at least part of drug transaction)
- United States v. Gillespie, 452 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (discusses standard of review for sentencing fact-findings)
- United States v. Zavalza-Rodriguez, 379 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2004) (possession of firearm in connection with offense precludes safety-valve relief)
- United States v. Hildreth, 485 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2007) (procedural reasonableness requires correct Guidelines calculation)