United States v. Maria Ramirez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6159

Ramirez, a courier/bookkeeper for a Indianapolis meth ring, was arrested with five pounds of meth worth over $100,000; stash-house search yielded two handguns and two more were found in related houses.
Ramirez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams of meth, but contested that coconspirators’ guns were not reasonably foreseeable to her.
The district court applied a two-level firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on coconspirators’ gun possession and large-scale operation.
Ramirez argued she could not have foreseen coconspirators’ guns and later argued, for the first time on appeal, safety-valve eligibility under § 5C1.2(a).
The Presentence Report described Ramirez as an integral member who handled money, drugs, and deliveries across multiple properties, three of which housed guns.
Ramirez’s offense level, after enhancements and reductions, yielded a guideline range of 168–210 months, with a below-guidelines sentence of 160 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) applies when firearm possession by coconspirators is reasonably foreseeable	Ramirez contends she could not foresee coconspirators’ guns.	Ramirez's argument is that the district court erred by attributing gun possession to her without individualized foreseeability.	Not clear error; individualized foreseeability supported by record.
Whether safety valve eligibility is barred by coconspirator gun possession under § 5C1.2(a)	Ramirez claims no firearms by her and thus qualifies for the safety valve.	The government argues the no-firearms condition can be satisfied only by own conduct, not coconspirator conduct.	Question is narrow; circuit treats scope as potentially narrower but plain-error review applies.
Whether the safety-valve claim was forfeited or waived and reviewed for plain error	Ramirez asserts safety valve eligibility was not properly considered.	Government argues potential waiver/forfeiture and need for district court to consider sua sponte.	Ramirez forfeiture doctrine applied; no plain error found given unsettled circuit precedent.
If plain error, whether the error affected substantial rights and fairness	Ramirez contends safety valve could reduce sentence if applicable.	Government argues any error would be non-fundamental given lack of clear precedent.	No plain-error result established; court affirmed.

United States v. Berchiolly, 67 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 1995) (common-sense foreseeability in drug conspiracy firearms)
United States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2007) (foreseeability of coconspirator firearm possession)
United States v. Banks, 987 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1993) (guns as tools of drug trade; foreseeability principle)
United States v. Vold, 66 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 1995) (individualized foreseeability for coconspirators)