454 F.Supp.3d 128
D.P.R.2020Background
- Police surveilled Pérez‑Greaux and observed him with a handgun; officers executed a search warrant at his Arecibo residence on June 5, 2018.
- In the defendant’s bedroom safe (opened by his passcode) officers found ~3 kilograms of cocaine, a scale, and drug‑shipping materials; defendant admitted packaging and mailing drugs to a Rochester contact (“Alex”).
- In a children’s bedroom closet officers found a wrapped, unloaded firearm, five magazines (one high‑capacity), and ammunition; a firearms expert testified the weapon was modified to fire automatically (a machinegun).
- Multiple cellphones, images of packages/receipts, mailing boxes addressed to Alex in Rochester, and other circumstantial evidence of distribution were recovered.
- Pérez‑Greaux told agents he received the cocaine and the firearm from Alex (later gave alternative explanations) and was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841) and possessing a firearm and a machinegun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Pérez‑Greaux moved under Rule 29 for judgment of acquittal arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intent to distribute, (2) insufficient proof the firearm was possessed "in furtherance" of drug trafficking, and (3) the government failed to prove he knew the firearm was a machinegun; the Court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved possession with intent to distribute cocaine | Gov't: admissions, safe opened by defendant, quantity (3 kg), scale, shipping materials, phone evidence show knowing possession and intent to distribute | Pérez‑Greaux: (general sufficiency preserved) challenges linking him to distribution for appeal | Held: Conviction sustained — evidence sufficient to infer knowing possession and intent to distribute |
| Whether firearm was possessed "in furtherance of" drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)) | Gov't: gun found in same residence as drugs and shipping boxes, accessible, ammo/mags present, prior observation of defendant with similar gun — supports nexus | Pérez‑Greaux: gun was unloaded, wrapped and stored separate from drugs, held for someone else — argues mere co‑presence | Held: Conviction sustained — jury could reasonably infer firearm advanced/protected drug activity given proximity, accessibility, context |
| Whether conviction under the machinegun enhancement requires proof defendant knew the weapon was a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii)) | Gov't: no knowledge element required; following Burwell and related authority, statutory language and precedent do not imply mens rea about the weapon’s characteristics | Pérez‑Greaux: mens rea required for the machinegun element; absent proof he knew the firearm was automatic, conviction on that count fails | Held: Court adopts Burwell reasoning — no separate knowledge-of‑machinegun requirement; evidence of the weapon’s automatic modification (expert testimony) sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (holding § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) does not require proof the defendant knew the firearm was a machinegun)
- Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120 (2000) (concluding the machinegun specification is an element of the offense, not a mere sentencing factor)
- O’Brien v. United States, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (left open the question whether knowledge of machinegun status is required)
- Shea v. United States, 150 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1998) (rejected a mens rea requirement for the semiautomatic assault‑weapon provision of § 924(c))
- Laureano‑Pérez v. United States, 797 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (assumed knowledge might be required but found evidence sufficient to show knowledge)
- Bobadilla‑Pagán v. United States, 747 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2014) (articulating objective factors for the "in furtherance" inquiry: proximity, accessibility, loaded status, surrounding circumstances)
- González‑Negrón v. United States, 892 F.3d 485 (1st Cir. 2018) (co‑presence of gun and drugs in different rooms raises a close question on the "in furtherance" element)
- Grace v. United States, 367 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (upholding § 924(c) conviction where gun, scale, drugs, and proceeds were stored in the home even though the gun was unloaded and bagged)
- Collazo‑Aponte v. United States, 281 F.3d 320 (1st Cir. 2002) (analogous statutory analysis: § 841(b) does not require proof that defendant knew the specific drug quantity involved)