United States v. Vargas-Rodriguez
692 F. App'x 65
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ramon Vargas-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced to 60 months.
- District court applied a four-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm "in connection with another felony offense."
- The separate felony was possession of ~220 grams of marijuana; marijuana and a loaded handgun were recovered in close proximity.
- Government expert testified the quantity, packaging (gallon Ziploc), and quality were consistent with distribution and that traffickers frequently carry firearms.
- Defendant argued the marijuana was for personal use and that the enhancement was unsupported; district court found intent to distribute and that the gun facilitated (or could facilitate) distribution.
- Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing only procedural reasonableness and applying clear‑error review to the district court’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a four‑level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement was warranted because the firearm was possessed "in connection with another felony offense" | Government: evidence shows intent to distribute marijuana and the gun could facilitate distribution | Vargas‑Rodriguez: drugs were for personal use; gun not connected to distribution | Affirmed: district court’s findings were a permissible view of the evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the district court clearly erred in finding intent to distribute | Government: quantity, packaging, value, expert testimony support distribution inference | Vargas‑Rodriguez: alternative inference of personal use exists | Affirmed: multiple factors supported distribution inference; alternative view does not show clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (in banc procedural‑error standard includes Guidelines miscalculation and clearly erroneous factual findings)
- United States v. Cuevas, 496 F.3d 256 (clear‑error standard explained)
- United States v. Hazut, 140 F.3d 187 (definition of clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Chalarca, 95 F.3d 239 (permissible view of evidence precludes clear error)
- United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470 (enhancement applies where firearm facilitated or could facilitate another felony)
- United States v. Muniz, 60 F.3d 65 (firearms are tools of narcotics trade; presence of gun can indicate connection to drug trafficking)