Case: 18-14707 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14707
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60131-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MASNIK SAINMELUS,
a.k.a., John Wicks,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 4, 2019)
Before WILSON, EDMONDSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-14707 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Masnik Sainmelus appeals his 36-month sentence after pleading guilty to
possessing a firearm not registered in the National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). First, he argues that the
district court erroneously applied a two-level enhancement because he was a
person prohibited from possessing firearms under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B),
based on its finding that he regularly used drugs at the time of his offense. Second,
he argues that the district court’s finding that his offense involved eight or more
firearms, leading to a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B),
was clearly erroneous.
I.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
application of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Newman,
614 F.3d 1232,
1235 (11th Cir. 2010). A factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous when the
factfinder is choosing between two permissible views of the evidence. United
States v. Saingerard,
621 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2010). The sentencing court
may make factual findings based on undisputed statements in the presentence
2
Case: 18-14707 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 3 of 5
investigation report (“PSI”). United States v. Hamilton,
715 F.3d 328, 339 (11th
Cir. 2013). When the government seeks to apply a sentencing enhancement over a
defendant’s factual objection, it has the burden of proving the facts by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Washington,
714 F.3d 1358, 1361
(11th Cir. 2013). In the context of a prohibited-person finding under U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1, the government must present “reliable and specific” evidence that the
defendant was an unlawful user of a drug. United States v. Bernardine,
73 F.3d
1078, 1081 (11th Cir. 1996).
Section 2K2.1 of the Guidelines, which addresses firearm offenses, assigns a
base offense level of 20 if, inter alia, the defendant “was a prohibited person at the
time the defendant committed the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). A
“prohibited person” is “any person described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),”
id., comment.
(n.3)., which prohibits individuals who are “unlawful user[s] of or addicted to any
controlled substance” from carrying firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
To be an “unlawful user” for sentencing purposes, the “defendant’s use must
be ongoing and contemporaneous with the commission of the offense.” United
States v. Edmonds,
348 F.3d 950, 953 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). Under
this standard, the government need not show that the defendant was under the
influence of a controlled substance at the time of his arrest, but only that he
qualified as an unlawful user “during the same time period as the firearm
3
Case: 18-14707 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 4 of 5
possession.”
Id. In Edmonds, we concluded that the defendant’s admitted history
of drug use and positive test for marijuana two months after his arrest, along with
testimony that the defendant was rolling a marijuana cigarette at the time of the
arrest, was sufficient to prove that the defendant was an unlawful user. See
id.
Here, the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for
being a person prohibited from possessing firearms: the record, including
defendant’s admitted facts in the PSI, supported that Sainmelus was an “unlawful
user” of marijuana and ecstasy, contemporaneous with his unlawful possession of
the unregistered firearms.
II.
If an offense for unlawful receipt, possession, or transportation of firearms
or ammunition involved 8 to 24 firearms, the offense level is increased by 4 levels.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B). For purposes of calculating the number of firearms in
this section, the court can only count “those firearms that were unlawfully sought
to be obtained, unlawfully possessed, or unlawfully distributed.”
Id., comment.
(n.5).
“Possession of a firearm may be either actual or constructive.” United States
v. Perez,
661 F.3d 568, 576 (11th Cir. 2011). “Constructive possession of a
4
Case: 18-14707 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 5 of 5
firearm exists when a defendant does not have actual possession but instead
knowingly has the power or right, and intention to exercise dominion and control
over the firearm.”
Id. A defendant’s presence in the vicinity of a firearm or
association with another who possesses that firearm is insufficient; alternatively,
the firearm need not be on or near the defendant’s person to amount to knowing
possession.
Id. To demonstrate constructive possession, the government must
show that “the defendant (1) was aware or knew of the firearm’s presence and (2)
had the ability and intent to later exercise dominion and control over that firearm.”
Id. In Perez, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish Perez’s
constructive possession of firearms placed in his car to be transported to a fictional
cocaine stash house he and his co-conspirators intended to rob.
Id. at 578.
Here, the district court properly applied a 4-level enhancement for
Sainmelus’s offense involving between 8 and 24 firearms because photograph
evidence showed Sainmelus within arm’s reach of at least 8 firearms, plus a
silencer, and also tended to show that he intended to exercise dominion or control
over all of them. Accordingly, we affirm Sainmelus’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5
