United States v. Marcos A. Acosta
700 F. App'x 997
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marcos Acosta pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition and was sentenced to 37 months.
- During a search of Acosta’s residence, officers found eight firearms, ammunition, drugs (heroin and cocaine), and drug paraphernalia.
- Acosta admitted the firearms, ammunition, and paraphernalia belonged to him and that he sold heroin and cocaine from his home.
- At sentencing Acosta argued the § 2K2.1(b)(6) four‑level enhancement was improper because the government offered no evidence that the firearms were used in or facilitated his drug trafficking and disputed any close spatial nexus.
- The district court applied the four‑level enhancement, reasoning the firearms’ presence in the home with the drugs created sufficient proximity and potential to facilitate the drug offenses.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the enhancement for clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to Guidelines application and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6) four‑level enhancement applies for firearms possessed "in connection with" a drug offense | Acosta: enhancement requires firearms be in "close proximity" to drugs and be shown to facilitate drug trafficking; mere co‑presence or temporal nexus is insufficient | Government/District Court: firearms found in the same residence as drugs and paraphernalia were close enough and had potential to facilitate drug activity | Court: Affirmed enhancement — presence of multiple firearms in the home created sufficient proximity and potential to facilitate drug offenses; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation; clear‑error review of facts)
- United States v. Whitfield, 50 F.3d 947 (11th Cir. 1995) (factual determination of "in connection with" reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (no clear error when record supports district court’s factual findings)
- United States v. Aguilar‑Ibarra, 740 F.3d 587 (11th Cir. 2014) (government must prove disputed sentencing facts by a preponderance)
- United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court may draw reasonable factual inferences when not speculative)
- United States v. Carrillo‑Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir. 2013) (firearm in proximity to drugs has potential to facilitate drug offense)
- United States v. Flennory, 145 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 1998) (firearm found nearby drug distribution supports inference it could be retrieved to avoid arrest or protect drugs/money)