United States v. Antonio Leon , 570 F. App'x 258 ( 2014 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2537
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTONIO LEON,
Appellant
_______________________
On Appeal from the District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Criminal No. 1-10-cr-00729-001
(Honorable Noel L. Hillman)
______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 08, 2014
Before: FISHER, SCIRICA, and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 1, 2014 )
_________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________________
1
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge
Defendant Antonio Leon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The
District Court sentenced Leon to a prison term of 108 months. Leon challenges his
sentence, in particular the application of a two-level enhancement for possession of a
firearm in connection with the drug trafficking offense. We will affirm.1
I.
From April to December 2009, Leon participated in a large-scale drug trafficking
organization in Camden County and Atlantic County, New Jersey, with several co-
conspirators, including Rafael Vasquez. Local law enforcement initiated an investigation
of the organization in which an undercover officer posing as a drug dealer approached
Vasquez about securing significant quantities of narcotics. In the following months,
Leon, Vasquez, and other co-conspirators provided and delivered to the undercover
officer crystal methamphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine. In addition to
narcotics, the undercover officer expressed an interest in purchasing firearms. Leon
accompanied Vasquez to a blueberry farm in Hammonton, New Jersey, where they
procured firearms to sell to the undercover officer. A few days later, Vasquez sold the
undercover officer a Yugoslavian M56 automatic assault weapon, an AK-47 assault rifle,
and fourteen rounds of ammunition.
Leon was arrested on December 3, 2009. After his arrest, Leon admitted to selling
narcotics to the undercover officer and accompanying Vasquez to pick up the firearms.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Our jurisdiction is provided
by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
He was charged in a superseding information with one count of conspiracy to possess
with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846.
On April 11, 2011, Leon pleaded guilty to the superseding information. Pursuant
to a written plea agreement, Leon admitted responsibility for the possession and
distribution of crystal methamphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine. He stipulated
a sentence resulting from an offense level of 29 would be reasonable and waived any
right to challenge such a sentence.2 But the Probation Office concluded in its
Presentence Investigation Report that Leon’s offense level should be 31, due to a two-
level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with the drug trafficking
offense under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2D1.1(b)(1) (the
“firearm enhancement”).3
On May 20, 2013, the District Court sentenced Leon to a prison term of 108
months. The District Court found that the base offense level for Leon’s conviction was
34 and reduced his offense level by two points for application of a safety valve provision
under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and three points for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1. It then applied the two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). As a result, Leon’s total offense level was 31. With a criminal history
category of I, Leon’s resulting Guidelines range was 108 to 135 months, and the District
Court sentenced Leon to the lowest end of that range.
2
The Guidelines range for a total offense level of 29 with a criminal history category of I,
for which Leon qualified, is 87 to 108 months.
3
The Guidelines range for a total offense level of 31 with a criminal history category of I
is 108 to 135 months.
3
At sentencing Leon objected to the application of the firearm enhancement,
contending he had no involvement in the possession of firearms. 4 The District Court
rejected his argument, finding the sale of firearms was part and parcel of the conspiracy.
Because Leon accompanied Vasquez to pick up the firearms and the co-conspirators
discussed the sale of firearms, the District Court concluded that possession of firearms
was a reasonably foreseeable act in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus qualified as
relevant conduct in determining whether to apply the firearm enhancement. It further
stated that even if the firearm enhancement did not apply and Vasquez’s resulting offense
level was 29, it would nonetheless impose a sentence of 108 months. This timely appeal
followed.
II.
Leon contends the District Court erred by applying the two-level firearm
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). He characterizes Vasquez’s sale of firearms
as a side venture wholly separate from the drug transactions and claims he had no
knowledge of them. Accordingly, Leon believes the firearm enhancement should not
have applied.
Section 2D1.1 is the Guideline applicable to a drug trafficking offense under 21
U.S.C. § 846. It calls for a two-level enhancement to the base offense level “[i]f a
dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
Further, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 directs a court to consider “relevant conduct”—that is, certain
4
Because the plea agreement did not contemplate application of the firearm enhancement
and barred the parties from seeking additional Guidelines adjustments, the Government
objected to the firearm enhancement and offered no argument regarding its application.
4
conduct beyond the offense of conviction—when determining whether enhancements
based on specific offense characteristics apply. Section 1B1.3 defines relevant conduct,
“in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity,” as “all reasonably foreseeable acts
and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,” so
long as those acts or omissions “occurred during the commission of the offense of
conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid
detection or responsibility for that offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). On this basis,
the District Court found the firearm enhancement applied.
Although we likely see no error, we need not determine whether the District Court
properly applied the firearm enhancement because even if the court erred, the error was
harmless. A sentencing error is harmless where the record “show[s] that the sentencing
judge would have imposed the same sentence under a correct Guidelines range, that is,
that the sentencing Guidelines range did not affect the sentence actually imposed.”
United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205, 216 (3d Cir. 2008). A court’s rationale for
imposing the same sentence must be adequately explained—“a bare statement devoid of
any justification” is not enough. United States v. Smalley, 517 F.3d 208, 215 (3d Cir.
2008).
It is clear from the record the District Court would have imposed a sentence of 108
months of imprisonment even if the firearm enhancement did not apply. After
calculating Leon’s Guidelines range with the firearm enhancement, the District Court
considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), paying particular attention to the sheer
scope of the conspiracy, the large quantities of drugs distributed, the sale of dangerous
5
weapons, and the need to protect the public and impose a sentence that afforded adequate
deterrence. It concluded that the § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of a sentence of 108
months of imprisonment, adding it would “impose this same sentence of 108 months
even if [it] did not apply the [firearm enhancement].” App. 97. Because a sentence of
108 months “furthers the statutory goals” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court emphasized it
would “exercise [its] full sentencing discretion to impose a sentence of 108 months,
whether it’s a [total offense level of] 29 or 31.” Id. at 98.
Given the District Court’s detailed explanation for imposing a prison term of 108
months regardless of whether Leon’s total offense level was 29 or 31, 5 any error in
applying the firearm enhancement was harmless.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
5
The Government and Leon acknowledged at sentencing that a sentence of 108 months
overlapped with both potential Guidelines ranges. We have held that such overlap is not
determinative of whether a sentencing error was harmless, but “may be helpful” to the
analysis. Langford, 516 F.3d at 216. Here, the District Court provided sufficient
justification for its alternative sentence, and we do not rely on the overlap in our analysis.
6