United States v. Nestor Barron
940 F.3d 903
6th Cir.2019Background
- In July 2017 officers executed warrants at Fernando Lara Salas’s home, at Jorge Macias Pedroza’s residence, and at a trailer they used; in Lara Salas’s upstairs bedroom officers found 6.043 kg of cocaine under the bed and $105,375 in a duffel, plus ~1,600 methamphetamine/MDA pills and a box with 26 nine‑mm rounds; a Jimenez 9mm pistol was found in a downstairs bedroom drawer.
- Nestor Barron was found sleeping in the upstairs bedroom; he admitted picking up cocaine for pay and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine, facing a 120‑month mandatory minimum unless he qualified for the safety valve.
- The PSR recommended a two‑level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1); the district court applied the enhancement and denied safety‑valve relief, finding Barron aided/abetted purchase/possession of ammunition and was not fully truthful.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the firearm enhancement (foreseeability from the large quantity) but held the district court clearly erred in finding Barron possessed or aided/abetted the firearm/ammunition and found he satisfied the safety‑valve truthfulness requirement; it vacated Barron’s sentence and remanded for resentencing without regard to the 10‑year mandatory minimum.
- Separately, Jorge Macias Pedroza was tried and convicted on multiple drug and firearm counts after searches uncovered drug‑paraphernalia, a field‑test result on a scale, and kilogram quantities in the trailer; he challenged dual role testimony by a detective.
- The court held the district court gave adequate cautionary instructions about a law‑enforcement witness’s dual fact/opinion roles and affirmed Macias Pedroza’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two‑level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) was clearly erroneous | Gov: firearm possession by coconspirator attributable to Barron as reasonably foreseeable given massive drugs/cash | Barron: no evidence he knew of or possessed the gun/ammo; ammo was hidden and others lived there | Affirmed: enhancement not clearly erroneous—quantity of drugs made firearm possession foreseeable |
| Whether Barron was ineligible for safety valve under §5C1.2(a)(2) because he possessed/induced possession of a firearm | Gov: Barron aided/abetted Lara Salas by procuring or storing ammunition; constructive possession from proximity | Barron: no evidence he bought or knew about the ammunition or had access to the room with the gun | Reversed: district court clearly erred—no evidence Barron purchased or constructively possessed the weapon; coconspirator possession alone insufficient to deny safety valve |
| Whether Barron failed §5C1.2(a)(5) by not truthfully providing all information to the government | Gov: omissions/inconsistencies (residence length, cash source, Warren role) undercut truthfulness | Barron: cooperated, disclosed known details about pickup, participants, dates, and admitted conspiracy; lacked knowledge of cash source as low‑level actor | Reversed: Barron proved timely, truthful disclosure by preponderance; safety valve applies; remand for resentencing without mandatory minimum |
| Whether district court erred in handling dual‑role (fact/expert) testimony of Detective Evans at Macias trial | Macias: trial court failed to clearly demarcate fact vs. opinion testimony and to caution jury adequately about dual role | Gov: court gave instruction and testimony scope was permissible | Affirmed: district court’s cautionary jury instruction (pattern language) was adequate; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (government’s burden to prove possession by preponderance for §2D1.1(b)(1))
- United States v. Cochran, 14 F.3d 1128 (6th Cir. 1994) (coconspirator firearm possession attributable when reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Woods, 604 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2010) (large quantities of drugs in one location can make firearm possession foreseeable)
- United States v. Odom, 13 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1994) (foreseeability inference from kilogram‑level cocaine transactions)
- United States v. Bazel, 80 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir. 1996) (safety‑valve statutory/Guidelines framework and requirement to meet all prongs)
- United States v. Bolka, 355 F.3d 909 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears preponderance burden to prove safety‑valve eligibility)
- In re Sealed Case (Sentencing Guidelines’ Safety Valve), 105 F.3d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (safety‑valve weapon prong limited to defendant’s own conduct; rejecting attribution by foreseeability)
- United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (constructive possession requires power and intent to control; presence alone insufficient)
- United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 1996) (risk of juror confusion when officer testifies in dual capacities; cautionary measures required)
- United States v. Lopez‑Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (district court and prosecutor must ensure jury understands law‑enforcement witness’s fact vs. expert roles)