Filed: Jul. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 12 CORRECTED [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13506 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00345-ODE-JSA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTURO SANCHEZ-RUIZ, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 24, 2015) Before HULL, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-135
Summary: Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 12 CORRECTED [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13506 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00345-ODE-JSA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTURO SANCHEZ-RUIZ, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 24, 2015) Before HULL, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-1350..
More
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 12
CORRECTED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13506
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00345-ODE-JSA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTURO SANCHEZ-RUIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 24, 2015)
Before HULL, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 12
Arturo Sanchez-Ruiz appeals his 110-month sentence for being an illegal
alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5); being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and illegal reentry
after having previously been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2).
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz raises two arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the
district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K.2.1(b)(6)(B) and imposing a four-
level enhancement for possession a firearm “in connection with another felony
offense.” Second, he asserts that his 110-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. After a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the
sentence imposed by the district court.
I
In July of 2013, local police officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, stopped a
Cadillac Escalade for a traffic violation. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz—the passenger in that
vehicle—gave the officers a Mexican identification card in the name of Rene
Salas-Moreno. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents arrived at the traffic
stop to locate and inspect the immigration records of Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz and the
driver. When the agents asked Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz if they could speak more
privately at another location, he suggested his apartment, which was nearby.
Before entering the apartment, the agents asked Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz whether
he had any firearms inside. He initially said he did not, but before the agents
2
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 3 of 12
entered the apartment, he volunteered that there was a firearm in his bedroom. He
also gave the agents written consent to search the apartment. The agents recovered
the loaded firearm under Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s pillow and $5,000 in cash under his
bed. They also found in the kitchen of the one-bedroom apartment a
methamphetamine sales ledger showing sales at the price of $17,000 per kilogram,
drug scales, cellophane wrapping, and plastic sandwich bags. After performing an
electronic query, the agents learned that the firearm had been stolen. At the
apartment, the agents fingerprinted Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz, which led them to his true
identity. They then reviewed his criminal record.
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz had four prior convictions, including two felony drug
convictions. In 2004, he was convicted of possession of 10 to 70 pounds of
marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. And in 2007, he was convicted of
trafficking more than 400 grams of cocaine and sentenced to 18 years’
imprisonment, but he was removed to Mexico in December of 2012, before
completing his full sentence. A grand jury charged Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz with being
an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (Count 1);
being a felon in possession of a firearm, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 2);
and illegal reentry after having previously been removed, under 8 U.S.C. §§
1326(a), (b)(2) (Count 3).
3
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 4 of 12
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz ultimately pled guilty to all three charges. He received a
base offense level of 24 for Counts 1 and 2, which were calculated together
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). He also received a four-level increase, under §
2K2.1(b)(6)(B), because he possessed the firearm “in connection with another
felony offense,” and this enhancement resulted in an adjusted offense level of 30.
A multiple count adjustment, under § 3D1.4, gave him a combined adjusted
offense level of 31. Because he accepted responsibility for his offenses, he
received a three-level downward adjustment, which resulted in a total offense level
of 28. Based on his prior criminal convictions, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz was assigned a
criminal history category of IV. With an offense level of 28 and a criminal history
category of IV, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s advisory guideline range was 110 to 137
months of imprisonment.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz objected to the four-level
enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), because he was neither indicted nor charged
with another felony offense. The government argued that, given Mr. Sanchez-
Ruiz’s history of drug trafficking, the fact that he was the only individual residing
in the one-bedroom apartment at the time the agents entered, and the fact that the
drug items and paraphernalia were found in the apartment, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz was
involved in drug trafficking. As a result, the firearm was used “in connection with”
felony drug trafficking activity. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz replied that he shared the
4
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 5 of 12
apartment with two other individuals and that none of the drug paraphernalia was
specifically tied to him. The government rebutted Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s claim that
he was not the only resident of the apartment by proffering that the driver of the
Escalade indicated he was moving into the apartment, but had not yet moved in,
and that the lease was likely signed by someone else because Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz
was an illegal alien. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz accepted the government’s proffer. The
district court then overruled Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s objection to the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
enhancement.
The district court sentenced Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz to 110-months imprisonment,
the low end of the advisory sentencing guideline range. It explained it thought the
sentence was fair and particularly aimed to deter further conduct by Mr. Sanchez-
Ruiz, as “we’ve been through this loop before, the return to the United States and
then more drug trafficking.” Therefore, in order for Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz “to
recognize the seriousness of the conduct and deter [him] from doing the same
things again, it has to be a reasonably stiff sentence.” Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz raised no
additional objections to the sentence after it was imposed.
On appeal, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz argues that the district court erred in applying
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), because he was never arrested, charged, nor indicted of any drug
felony offense in relation to the possession of the firearm. He relies primarily on
appeal on testimony from the lead investigating officer, Steven Ledgerwood, at a
5
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 6 of 12
pretrial suppression hearing. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz also argues that his 110-month
sentence is substantively unreasonable given his personal characteristics and
circumstances.
II
We review the interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo and the
district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. See United
States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2005). A finding of fact “is clearly
erroneous when, after reviewing all the evidence, the court is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Philidor,
717 F.3d 883, 885 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted). We
review the substantive reasonableness of a criminal sentence under the abuse of
discretion standard. United States v. Livesay,
587 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.
2009).
A
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz contends that the district court erred when it applied a
four level offense enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the advisory sentencing
guidelines. To apply § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the district court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant possessed the firearm “in
connection with another felony offense” or “with knowledge, intent, or reason to
6
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 7 of 12
believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony
offense.”
The district court found that Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz indeed possessed the firearm
in connection with a drug trafficking felony, relying on the $5,000 in cash found in
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s apartment, the drug ledger citing the price of $17,000 per
kilogram, and other drug paraphernalia found in the apartment. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz
argues this evidence was insufficient for the district court to find by a
preponderance that the firearm was used in connection with another drug felony
offense. See United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013)
(stating that where a defendant challenges one of the factual bases of his sentence,
the government must prove the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence
with reliable and specific evidence). We disagree.
On appeal, Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz relies heavily on the testimony of Agent
Ledgerwood, who testified at a pretrial suppression hearing before a magistrate
judge that he did not believe he had sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr.
Sanchez-Ruiz for drug offenses based on the drug items and drug paraphernalia
found in his apartment. Specifically, Agent Ledgerwood stated that the presence of
those items was “more evidence that he might be involved in that stuff, but not
really an arrestable offense.” Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz argues that because Agent
Ledgerwood did not have probable cause to arrest him for a felony drug offense,
7
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 8 of 12
the district court erred when it concluded by a preponderance of the evidence, a
higher standard than probable cause, that Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz possessed the firearm
“in connection with” a felony drug offense. Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz, however, did not
make this argument to the district court or refer to Agent Ledgerwood’s testimony
at sentencing.
Litigants are required “to make all their objections to a sentencing court’s
findings of facts . . . at the initial sentencing hearing.” United States v. Canty, 570
F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). Although Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz did raise an
objection to the four-level enhancement, he never mentioned Agent Ledgerwood’s
testimony or the lack of probable cause to arrest him for a drug offense to the
district court at sentencing. Instead, his bare-bones argument to the district court
was that there was insufficient evidence to conclude the firearm was used “in
connection with another felony offense” because he was not the only occupant of
the apartment.
“Where the district court has offered the opportunity to object and a party . .
. fails to state [ ] grounds for objection, objections to the sentence will be waived
for purposes of appeal, and this court need not entertain an appeal upon such
objections, unless refusal to do so would result in manifest injustice.” United States
v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir. 1990) overruled on other grounds by
United States v. Morrill,
984 F.2d 1136, 1137 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Given
8
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 9 of 12
that Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz did not present to the district court the argument he now
advances on appeal, that argument does not entitle him to reversal. See Canty, 570
F.3d at 1257 (a defendant cannot “present additional evidence and seek additional
findings of fact and conclusions of law to [avoid] the ACCA enhancement when
[he] failed to offer such evidence and seek those findings and conclusions during
the initial sentencing hearing”).
Based upon the record before it, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz committed a felony drug offense in connection with
the possession of the firearm. The district court, at the time of the sentencing
hearing, could have reasonably concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that
Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz committed a drug trafficking felony offense. The district court
credited the government’s proffer (which Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz accepted) and
concluded that the drug items and paraphernalia belonged to Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz, the
sole resident of the apartment. We are not left with a definite and firm conclusion
that the district court made a mistake. See Philidor, 717 F.3d at 885.
The district court also did not err in applying its factual findings to its
interpretation of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The guidelines commentary provides that “in
connection with” means when a firearm “facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating, another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(A). “Another
felony offense” under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “means any federal, state, or local
9
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 10 of 12
offense,” punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of
whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1, cmt. 14(C). The relevant commentary also states that § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
applies “in the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in
close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia.”
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B). “In these cases, applications of subsections
(b)(6)(B) . . . is warranted because the presence of the firearm has the potential of
facilitating another felony offense or another offense, respectively.” Id.
Although Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz correctly notes that he was not arrested,
charged, or convicted of another felony offense, the commentary makes clear that a
defendant need not be charged or convicted of an offense, in order for the district
court to conclude at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm
facilitated or had the potential of facilitating another felony offense. See U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1, cmt. 14(C). In this case, the drug paraphernalia was found in the same one-
bedroom apartment as the firearm. We have previously held that “[a] firearm found
in close proximity to drugs or drug-related items ‘has’—without any requirement
for additional evidence—the potential to facilitate the drug offense.” United States
v. Carillo-Ayala,
713 F.3d 82, 92 (11th Cir. 2013). See also United States v. Rhind,
289 F.3d 690, 695 (11th Cir. 2002) (construing § 2K2.1(b)(5)—now §
2K2.1(b)(6)—broadly and finding that “the firearm does not have to facilitate the
10
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 11 of 12
underlying offense”). In sum, the district court did not err in its interpretation and
application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) in this case.
B
Having concluded that the district court did not err in applying §
2K2.1(b)(6)(B), we turn to the argument that the 110-month sentence was
substantively unreasonable given Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s personal background and the
circumstances of his offenses. Although we acknowledge Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s
difficult upbringing and family situation, we do not find that his 110-month
sentence, a sentence at the low end of the advisory guideline range and well within
the statutory ranges for Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s convictions, is substantively
unreasonable. See United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 648 (11th Cir. 2015)
(explaining that while we do not “automatically presume a sentence within the
guidelines range is reasonable, . . . we ordinarily expect a sentence within the
Guidelines range to be reasonable”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The district court considered Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz’s previous cycle of criminal
activity and illegal reentry into the United States and emphasized that it believed a
sentence of 110 months was proper for Mr. Sanchez-Ruiz, because he needed “to
recognize the seriousness of the conduct and deter [him] from doing the same
things again.” The district court relied primarily on the sentence’s need to reflect
11
Case: 14-13506 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 12 of 12
the seriousness of the offense, see § 3553(a)(2)(A), and deter future criminal
conduct, see § 3553(a)(2)(B). The weight the district court gives to any § 3553(a)
factor “is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). We do not find that the district
court abused its discretion in imposing a 110-month sentence.
III
We affirm the district court’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
12
