United States v. Paul Suarez, 879 F.3d 626

Background

Police executed a warrant at Erica Gutierrez’s residence after methamphetamine was found in a buyer’s truck; they found Gutierrez and Paul Suarez in the master bedroom along with distributable meth, scales, baggies, security cameras, body armor, shotgun shells, a .380 pistol, and a disassembled .20‑gauge Winchester sawed‑off shotgun; an Ithaca sawed‑off shotgun was found under a mattress in another bedroom.
Witnesses Gutierrez and Travis Puckett testified that Suarez acted as an overseer/consul for Gutierrez’s drug sales, distributed meth, sometimes carried a shotgun during deals, and was present when sales occurred.
Indictment: Count I — conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846); Count II — possession of a pistol and Winchester sawed‑off shotgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); Counts III–IV — possession of unregistered shotguns (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)).
Jury convicted Suarez on all counts. District court adopted PSR and imposed concurrent 60‑month terms on Counts I, III, IV and imposed a consecutive 120‑month mandatory minimum on Count II (treating the Winchester as a sawed‑off shotgun triggering § 924(c)(1)(B)(i)).
On appeal Suarez challenged evidentiary sufficiency and the applicability of the 10‑year mandatory minimum; the Government conceded plain error as to the sentencing issue and the panel independently reviewed the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Suarez)	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence for drug‑conspiracy (Count I)	Evidence (Gutierrez’s accomplice testimony, drugs/paraphernalia, surveillance equipment) supports conspiracy conviction	Evidence insufficient or witnesses unreliable	Affirmed; evidence sufficient (plain‑error review)
2. Sufficiency and unanimity for § 924(c) possession in furtherance (Count II)	Either pistol or Winchester supported § 924(c) conviction; jury need not be unanimous about which firearm when multiple are alleged	Instruction/ verdict form should have required jury to specify firearm; insufficiency/unanimity error	Conviction affirmed; jury need not unanimously pick a particular weapon for § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction, evidence supports possession in furtherance (plain‑error review)
3. Sufficiency for possession of unregistered firearms (Counts III–IV)	Constructive possession established by proximity, access, and witness testimony	Challenged sufficiency	Affirmed (de novo review preserved): constructive possession of Winchester and Ithaca supported
4. Applicability of 10‑year mandatory minimum under § 924(c)(1)(B)(i)	Court treated Winchester as sawed‑off shotgun and imposed consecutive 120 months	Trial instruction/ verdict did not require jury to unanimously find the sawed‑off shotgun as the firearm in furtherance; Alleyne/Apprendi require jury find facts increasing mandatory minimum	Vacated sentence as to Count II and remanded for resentencing: imposition of 10‑year minimum was plain error because jury did not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that Suarez possessed a sawed‑off shotgun in furtherance, affecting substantial rights and fairness

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (holding that any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (explaining status of certain firearm characteristics as elements when enhancing mandatory minimums)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (plain‑error framework and discussion of when unobjected error undermines fairness of proceedings)
United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. en banc) (standards for plain‑error review in sufficiency challenges)
United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308 (plain‑error standard and deference to jury verdicts)