F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
April 17, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
No. 06-4141
ODI LUKE-SA NCHEZ, also known as
“M anuel,”
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Utah
(D.C. No. 2:05-CR-205-01-TS)
Stephen R. M cCaughey, M cCaughey & M etos, Salt Lake City, Utah, for
Defendant - Appellant.
Diana Hagen, Assistant United States Attorney (Brett L. Tolman, United States
Attorney, with her on the brief) Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake
City, Utah, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Before L UC ER O, M cKA Y, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges.
L UC ER O, Circuit Judge.
Odi Luke-Sanchez challenges his conviction for possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, stemming from a M arch 23, 2005
transaction in which Luke-Sanchez sold methamphetamine to an undercover agent
and a confidential informant in exchange for guns and cash. He challenges his
conviction on two grounds: First, he argues that his underlying conduct, trading
drugs for guns, does not satisfy the “in furtherance” prong of § 924(c); second, he
contends the district court’s jury instructions improperly precluded a factual
finding by the jury on an essential element of § 924(c). Exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM .
I
Following his arrest, a methamphetamine dealer named Kenneth Jervis
agreed to assist the government in identifying his suppliers. W hile monitoring his
calls, the government identified a supplier named “M anuel,” who it was later
determined was Luke-Sanchez. During one of those calls, Luke-Sanchez asked
Jervis about the possibility of obtaining firearms. Following Luke-Sanchez’s
request, the government set up a sting operation during which an undercover
agent (the “agent”) would trade Luke-Sanchez guns in exchange for
methamphetamine.
On M arch 23, 2005, Jervis called Luke-Sanchez to tell him a friend had
brought some guns he was interested in trading for drugs to Jervis’ apartment.
A bout an hour later, Luke-Sanchez arrived at Jervis’ apartment with two
associates – Lorenzo Perez-Ordorica and Alberto Lopez-Pallan. After a few
minutes of casual conversation, the agent asked Luke-Sanchez, “Do you have
what I need?” When Luke-Sanchez replied that he did, the agent told him that he
-2-
had what Luke-Sanchez needed. Luke-Sanchez responded, “pistolas.” 1 At that
point, all five men headed to the bedroom, where the agent motioned to a toolbox
sitting near the bed. The agent handed Luke-Sanchez a Glock 40 millimeter
pistol and a Colt .45 caliber pistol that were inside the box. W hile examining
them, Luke-Sanchez asked if the guns were stolen.
Both guns passed Luke-Sanchez’s inspection, at which point he asked the
agent how much he wanted for them. The agent responded that he wanted “one
bag” (one ounce of methamphetamine). After further discussion between Luke-
Sanchez and his associates, he counter-offered three-quarters of an ounce, which
the agent accepted. Perez-Ordorica then left the apartment and returned with a
larger quantity of methamphetamine. Luke-Sanchez and his associates sold most
of the methamphetamine to Jervis and the agent for cash, but three-quarters of an
ounce was handed over for the guns. Upon leaving the building with the guns and
cash, the three men were arrested.
All three were charged with possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A ) and possession of methamphetamine with
intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Luke-Sanchez alone was
also charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Although both of Luke-Sanchez’s
1
All three of the men spoke rudimentary English, and the agent spoke
“eighth grade Spanish.”
-3-
associates pled guilty to a single count of possession with intent to distribute,
Luke-Sanchez chose to proceed to trial.
At the government’s request, the district court provided the jury with the
following instruction on the required proof under § 924(c): “Regarding Count III,
you may find the defendant guilty of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime if you conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he acquired a
gun by trading drugs for it.” Luke-Sanchez objected to this instruction on the
ground that “trading drugs for a gun is not ‘use of the gun’ in violation of
924(c),” but his objection was overruled. The jury convicted him on all counts.
He was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment on Counts I and II, and 60
months’ imprisonment on Count III, to run consecutively, for a total of 295
months.
II
W e review the district court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. United
States v. Cordova-Arevalo, 456 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2006). Upon a
timely challenge, we review a district court’s jury instructions “de novo . . . to
determine whether, considering the instructions as a whole, the jury was misled.”
United States v. Curtis, 344 F.3d 1057, 1068 (10th Cir. 2003). A jury instruction
that improperly describes an element of the charged crime is reviewed for
harmless error. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999). A guilty verdict
following an erroneous instruction will be upheld if “it appears beyond a
-4-
reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict
obtained.” Id. (quotation omitted).
A
W e must first determine w hether, as a matter of law , Luke-Sanchez’s
conduct supports a conviction under § 924(c). Prior to 1998, the government
needed to show that “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime [the defendant] . . . use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm” to convict
under § 924(c). See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 138 (1995) (quoting
§ 924(c)(1)). This statutory language had engendered a lively circuit split on the
question of w hether trading drugs for guns constitutes “use” of a firearm. A bare
majority of our sister circuits held that it does, generally grounding their holding
in the Court’s statement in Bailey that “‘use’ certainly includes . . . bartering,”
516 U.S. at 148. See United States v. Cotto, 456 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 2006);
United States v. Sumler, 294 F.3d 579, 583 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v.
Ramirez-Rangel, 103 F.3d 1501, 1506 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Ulla, 94
F.3d 949, 956 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1509 (8th
Cir. 1996). A minority of circuits interpret the statute (and Bailey) differently,
holding that “use,” in the bartering context, requires some active employment of
the firearm by the defendant, beyond merely accepting the gun as payment. See
United States v. M ontano, 398 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Stewart, 246 F.3d 728, 731-32 (D.C. Cir. 2001); United States v. W arwick, 167
-5-
F.3d 965, 975-76 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. W estmoreland, 122 F.3d 431,
435-36 (7th Cir. 1997).
W e have not had occasion to reach the question, and post-Bailey legislation
has made it less likely we will have the opportunity to do so. Congress amended
the relevant statutory text in 1998 to also criminalize possession of a firearm “in
furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime. § 924(c)(1)(A ); An Act To Throttle
Criminal Use of Guns, Pub. L. No. 105-386, sec. 1(a)(1), § 924(c)(1)(A), 112
Stat. 3469, 3469 (1998). W hereas the pre-1998 language required courts to
determine whether a defendant “used” a firearm, the amended language explicitly
criminalizes simple possession “in furtherance of” a drug crime. Luke-Sanchez
does not contest his possession of the two pistols, leaving the narrower question
of whether trading drugs for guns “further[s]” the crime of drug trafficking. For
substantially the same reasons articulated by the Sixth Circuit in United States v.
Frederick, 406 F.3d 754, 764 (6th Cir. 2005), we are satisfied that it does.
W e have previously held that “possession in furtherance, requires the
government to show that the weapon furthered, promoted or advanced a drug
trafficking crime.” United States v. Robinson, 435 F.3d 1244, 1251 (10th Cir.
2006) (quotations omitted). This requires that the government establish some
nexus between the firearms and the underlying drug trafficking crime. See
Frederick, 406 F.3d at 764. W hen he traded three-quarters of an ounce of
methamphetamine for two pistols, Luke-Sanchez accepted the pistols as a form of
-6-
payment. But for the pistols, the crime of drug trafficking would not have
occurred, at least with respect to that quantity of methamphetamine for which the
pistols were payment. In this sense, the pistols were akin to any other form of
currency used to pay for illegal drugs, all of which further and promote drug
trafficking by sustaining the drug market. Accordingly, the nexus between the
drugs and the guns used to pay for them is sufficient, as a matter of law, to meet
the “in furtherance” prong of § 924(c). In other words, trading drugs for guns
“further[s], promote[s] or advances a drug trafficking crime.” Robinson, 435 F.3d
at 1251.
B
Counsel for Luke-Sanchez switched tack at oral argument, focusing the
court’s attention on the alleged error in the district court’s § 924(c) jury
instruction. By instructing the jury that “you may find the defendant guilty of
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime if you conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that he acquired a gun by trading drugs for it,” Luke-
Sanchez contends the court precluded the jury from making a factual
determination on the “in furtherance” prong. However, Luke-Sanchez’s objection
at trial to that instruction rested on a different theory – that “trading drugs for a
gun is not ‘use’ of the gun in violation of 924(c).” As such, only that ground for
objection – that trading drugs for guns is not punishable under the statute – is
-7-
properly preserved on appeal. 2 See Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tels., Inc., 931 F.2d
655, 660 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A party’s objection to a jury instruction must be
sufficiently clear such ‘that the grounds stated in the objection [are] obvious,
plain, or unmistakable.’”) (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen
Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir. 1984)) (alteration in original).
Even if Luke-Sanchez had preserved this issue, we are convinced that it
lacks merit. Although Luke-Sanchez’s brief must be carefully parsed to untangle
this argumentative thread, he appears to claim that under certain circumstances a
defendant might trade drugs for guns without furthering a drug trafficking crime.
Two hypothetical scenarios were suggested: one in which the defendant receives
the guns gratis, and another in which the guns are proactively introduced into the
transaction by the government. Therefore, he alleges, it was a mistake of law for
the district court to instruct the jury that trading drugs for guns per se violates
§ 924(c).
Notwithstanding that the district court’s instruction in this case was
permissive, neither scenario implicates the instruction as w ritten. W ith regard to
the first, no juror could reasonably confuse being given a gun with acquiring one
by “trading drugs for it.” See Frederick, 406 F.3d at 764 (distinguishing United
2
Although both Luke-Sanchez and the district court demonstrated some
confusion about the government’s required showing under the current version of
§ 924(c) by focusing on the “use” prong, Luke-Sanchez’s objection was sufficient
to preserve a challenge under the “possession” prong.
-8-
States v. Lawrence, 308 F.3d 623, 631 (6th Cir. 2002)). W ith regard to the
second hypothetical, such a circumstance might give rise to a defense of
entrapment, but does not cast doubt on the instruction itself. An entrapment
defense hinges on whether the defendant was induced to commit the crime, not on
whether the charged conduct is punishable under the relevant statute. See United
States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435 (1973) (“Congress could not have intended
criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a
proscribed offense but was induced to commit them by the G overnment.”). In
such cases, the proper course is to argue entrapment at trial (an argument Luke-
Sanchez did not make, and which finds no basis in the record), and request the
jury be instructed on entrapment accordingly. See United States v. Nguyen, 413
F.3d 1170, 1178 (10th Cir. 2005).
III
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED.
-9-