United States v. Hargrove, 911 F.3d 1306

Border Patrol stopped a truck near the AZ‑NM border; occupants included Hargrove, his girlfriend Richter, and a backpacker; agents found ~297 lbs. of marijuana and two loaded firearms in/on the truck. Hargrove admitted the guns were his and claimed the marijuana was alfalfa.
Hargrove was tried and convicted of conspiracy to distribute >100 kg marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846) and possession with intent to distribute ≥100 kg marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841) and sentenced to the 60‑month mandatory minimum.
Pretrial, the district court excluded any evidence that one firearm was stolen but allowed testimony that loaded firearms were present.
At trial, a Border Patrol agent mistakenly testified the pistol was stolen; the prosecutor acknowledged fault, the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, the government withdrew a weapons exhibit, avoided expert firearms testimony, and did not mention the guns in closing. The court denied a mistrial.
At sentencing, Hargrove sought safety‑valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, contesting that he ‘‘possessed a firearm in connection with the offense.’’ The district court denied relief, finding active possession and a close connection (proximity and potential to facilitate the offense).

Issue	Hargrove's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial after agent testified a gun was stolen (contrary to limine) was error	Testimony was highly prejudicial, could not be cured by instruction; mistrial required	Prosecutor’s question was inadvertent; court instructions cured any prejudice; evidence of guilt made the remark inconsequential	Denial of mistrial affirmed — no abuse of discretion (no bad faith, effective curative instructions, and strong other evidence of guilt)
Whether district court erred denying safety‑valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2) because firearms weren’t connected to offense	Court focused only on proximity; failed to consider Hargrove’s own conduct and lack of evidence the guns facilitated the drug offense	Hargrove admitted ownership and knowledge of guns; guns were loaded, in the cab with drugs, proximate and had potential to facilitate drug trafficking; active possession standard met	Denial of safety‑valve relief affirmed — active possession shown by Hargrove’s admissions, proximity, and potential to facilitate the offense

United States v. Meridyth, 364 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004) (mistrial standard; factors include prosecutor bad faith, curative instructions, and weight of other evidence)
United States v. Wells, 739 F.3d 511 (10th Cir. 2014) (curative instruction can cure single‑witness testimonial errors)
United States v. Zavalza‑Rodriguez, 379 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2004) (safety‑valve focuses on defendant’s own conduct and requires close connection for active possession)
United States v. Hallum, 103 F.3d 87 (10th Cir. 1996) (firearm proximity and potential to facilitate offense can preclude safety‑valve relief)
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1993) (firearm must facilitate or have potential to facilitate the offense to be "in relation to" it)
United States v. Pena‑Sarabia, 297 F.3d 983 (10th Cir. 2002) (safety‑valve’s purpose and defendant‑conduct focus)