United States v. Nuñez
852 F.3d 141
1st Cir.2017Background
- Oscar Núñez pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after state convictions for arson and criminal threatening; he received an 82‑month federal sentence.
- Police executed a search warrant at Núñez’s residence the day after an arson at David Ireland’s home; they found a .380 pistol in the eaves and, under the deck, two red gas cans next to six beer‑bottle Molotov cocktails.
- Núñez had previously threatened Ireland with a handgun and was identified as one of two men who set Ireland’s house on fire; shots had been fired at the house that night.
- At sentencing the court treated each Molotov cocktail as both a firearm and a destructive device, which raised Núñez’s Guidelines sentencing range and produced specific enhancements (base level increase, +2 for three or more firearms, +2 destructive device).
- Núñez challenged the district court’s factual finding of constructive possession of the Molotov cocktails; the government bore the burden to prove sentence‑enhancing facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Molotov cocktails were constructively possessed by Núñez | Government: circumstantial evidence shows Núñez had knowledge and control | Núñez: items were under an exterior deck accessible to others; no direct evidence he possessed them | Court: Constructive possession proven by circumstantial evidence—possession at home + proximity to gas cans and recent arson supports inference of knowledge and control |
| Standard of review for sentencing factfinding | Government: findings reviewed for clear error when preserved below | Núñez: disputed facts are uncontested so de novo review should apply | Court: Clear‑error review applies to inferences from undisputed facts; even de novo would not change result |
| Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support Guidelines enhancements | Government: circumstantial proof may suffice to prove dominion and control | Núñez: inferences are speculative; accomplice could have hidden the items | Court: Inferences are plausible and commonsense; presence in defendant’s domain and proximity to tools of the crime suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dávila‑González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (sources for facts after guilty plea)
- United States v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1991) (sources for facts after plea)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (two‑step review of criminal sentences)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Cintrón‑Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (clear‑error standard explained)
- United States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709 (1st Cir. 2011) (government’s burden at sentencing: preponderance)
- United States v. Leahy, 668 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012) (preserved sentencing factfinding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Maldonado‑García, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard for constructive possession)
- United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (definition of actual possession)
- United States v. Zavala Maldonado, 23 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 1994) (possession inferred from control over premises)
- United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1993) (possession inferred from control of area where contraband found)
- United States v. Ridolfi, 768 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (constructive possession may rest on circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (inferences need only be plausible)
- United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992) (factfinders may draw reasonable inferences from common human behavior)
- United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499 (1st Cir. 1990) (sentencing court’s choice among plausible interpretations not clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Dunston, 851 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2017) (judges may rely on common sense in drawing inferences)