United States of America v. Jose Jesus Reyes-Gallaga Vargas, a.k.a. Victor Vargas-Chavez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE JESUS REYES-GALLAGA
VARGAS, a.k.a. Victor Vargas-Chavez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10649
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00459-KJM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Reyes-Gallaga Vargas appeals the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession
with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 841(a)(1), and dealing firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vargas argues that the district court improperly increased his base offense
level by two points for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). We disagree. “In applying this enhancement, ‘the court need not
find a connection between the firearm and the offense. If it finds that the defendant
possessed the weapon during the commission of the offense, the enhancement is
appropriate.’” United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1998)
(quoting United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1989)). Vargas
admitted to possessing the firearms during the firearm/drug sales. Even if the
firearms were for sale, and not protection, Vargas still had access to them, and he
could have put them to nefarious ends had he wished. See United States v.
Heldberg, 907 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
13-10649 2

-- 2 of 2 --