Sentencing; Whether defendant was entitled to a retroactive two-level reduction in his offense level under USSG § 4C.1.1(a); Whether § 4C1.1(a)(7)’s reduction exception for defendants who possessed a firearm “in connection with” their offense made him ineligible for the reduction; United States v Hanson

In an issue of first impression in this circuit (interpretation of § 4C1.1(a)(7)’s “in connection with” clause), the court held that defendant-Tajwar was not entitled to a reduced sentence under this retroactive amendment because he possessed a firearm “in connection with” his money laundering offenses. Tajwar sought a reduction in his sentence for his money-laundering convictions based on the addition of § 4C1.1 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively granted a defendant with no criminal history a two-level decrease in offense level, subject to certain exceptions. The district court denied the request, ruling that he was ineligible under § 4C1.1(a)(7)’s exception for defendants who possessed a firearm “in connection with” their offense. Tajwar argued that the firearm (found in his vehicle) was not used in connection with his offense but was only for self-defense. The court noted that with drug-related offenses, it often infers “that a defendant’s firearm could or would ‘be used to protect . . . drugs or otherwise facilitate a drug transaction’ when the defendant keeps the weapon close to his drugs or drug paraphernalia.” Here, as “part of the conspiracy, Tajwar drove to various cities around the country picking up drug money that he would then transport and launder. [He] brought his gun to each one of these courier runs.” During a traffic stop, two bags of drug money were found behind the driver’s seat. The unloaded firearm (which Tajwar admitted belonged to him) and a loaded magazine were found in a gun box in the van’s third row of seats. “The ‘close proximity’ between Tajwar’s gun and the drug money along with [his] ‘easy access’ to the weapon should he need to protect those monies were ‘indicative of a connection’ between the gun and Tajwar’s money laundering activities.” Additionally, he admitted “he brought the gun for protection while carrying out the offenses.” In any event, his “placement of the gun supports the district court’s nexus finding.” Affirmed.