United States v. Mario Alberto Montenegro, 1 F.4th 940

Montenegro sold 58 g of cocaine to an undercover officer at his small trailer on Nov. 13, 2018, and later sold ~1,994 g on Dec. 12, 2018; he was arrested after the second sale.
DEA search of the trailer found a loaded .22-caliber bolt-action rifle on the dashboard near the bed, a box of .22 bullets in a cabinet, a drug-sales ledger on the kitchen table (near the bed), and 811 g of cocaine.
Indicted for possession with intent to distribute >=500 g and conspiracy; total drug quantity ~2.863 kg.
PSI applied a 2-level U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) firearms enhancement; both Montenegro and the government initially objected to the enhancement; probation office and district court applied it, finding a sufficient nexus.
District court sentenced Montenegro to 62 months (within 60–71 mo. guideline range). Montenegro appealed arguing the government had conceded lack of proof and that the nexus was insufficient; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Montenegro's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the §2D1.1(b)(1) two-level firearms enhancement was justified	The government effectively conceded it had no evidence the rifle was used in connection with the offenses; proximity facts are insufficient (citing Stallings)	The rifle was present at the site of charged conduct (the trailer), was loaded, near drugs and a ledger, and belonged to Montenegro; presence suffices to meet the government’s initial burden	Affirmed: government carried its burden showing the firearm was present at the site of the charged conduct; Montenegro failed to show a clearly improbable nexus, so enhancement proper
Whether the government is bound by its pre‑sentencing position that the enhancement did not apply	Government’s prior objection meant it admitted lack of proof and cannot later argue to apply the enhancement	The district court—not the parties—determines guideline application; parties’ positions are not binding on the court; government may change position	Rejected: court may reach a different conclusion than the parties; no rule that binds the government to its earlier position

United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2006) (vacated enhancement where no evidence linking firearms to drug-conspiracy activities at the residence)
United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir. 2013) (proximity between guns and drugs can satisfy government’s initial burden; heavy burden of negation on defendant)
United States v. Audain, 254 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2001) (mere presence of a firearm during the drug offense is sufficient for enhancement)
United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming enhancement where firearm found in a place where drug transactions occurred)
United States v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62 (11th Cir. 1995) (upholding enhancement when a firearm was proximate to drug-related objects in a house used for trafficking)
United States v. Delgado, 981 F.3d 889 (11th Cir. 2020) (observing firearms may serve multiple purposes, including protection of drugs or stash)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (only the district court determines the applicable guideline range)