United States v. Paneto
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23325
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Providence, Rhode Island narcotics unit conducted an operation to probe street-level drug trafficking in a crime-ridden neighborhood on August 19, 2009.
- A plainclothes officer purchased drugs from a third party and was later confronted at the defendant's home, leading to seizure of drugs, a gun, and ammunition and Paneto’s custody.
- Paneto, with multiple prior felonies, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine; he was convicted on the gun charge and acquitted on the drug-trafficking charge.
- At a knock-and-talk entry, officers observed a marked $20 bill on a coffee table, which defendant consented to search after Miranda warnings.
- During the search, officers found additional cocaine, then opened a safe revealing an unloaded 9mm Beretta and a magazine with ammunition; suppression motion followed.
- The district court denied suppression, invoking inevitable discovery; the First Circuit alternatively assessed plain-view grounds and later addressed sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plain-view seizure was valid | Paneto contends the bill handling tainted consent/search. | Paneto argues the plain-view seizure was improper due to initial manipulation of the bill. | Plain view valid; no reversible error on suppression. |
| Whether the 2K2.1(b)(6) four-level enhancement applies | Paneto challenges nexus between firearm and second felony. | Paneto argues lack of close connection to drug trafficking and non-proximate gun. | Enhancement proper; close proximity to drugs supports nexus under Application Note 14. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanchez, 612 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (plain view analysis standard in First Circuit)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1987) (plain view, scope of investigation and exposure)
- United States v. Brutchert Brewster, 1 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 1993) (early interpretation of in-connection standard)
- United States v. Thompson, 32 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) (gun presence near crime scene may indicate nexus)
- United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (acquitted conduct may inform sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Damon, 595 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2010) (preponderance burden for enhancements; drug nexus)
- United States v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2000) (close proximity standard for drugs and gun)
- United States v. Cannon, 589 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2009) (consideration of circumstantial evidence in sentencing)
- United States v. Guildin Rhind, 289 F.3d 690 (11th Cir. 2002) (gun, even when unloaded, can facilitate drug trafficking)
- United States v. Ellis, 168 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 1999) (distinction on drug-trafficking nexus under different guideline)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (Guidelines advisory; sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression findings)
- United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard of review for suppression rulings)