Does simultaneous constructive possession of drugs and firearms disqualify a defendant for safety-valve-relief

QUESTION PRESENTED In a memorandum disposition, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit dismissed Jesus Aguilar’s claim that he was entitled to safety valve relief in a single sentence, reasoning that Mr. Aguilar was disqualified because he “agreed to smuggle [] drugs, drug proceeds, and firearms between California and Washington.” (App.3a.) That conclusion conflicts with the Tenth Circuit’s recent published opinion in United States v. Martinez, 82 F.4th 994 (10th Cir. 2023). In Martinez, multiple weapons were found alongside the defendant’s drugs in a residence to which he had access. Despite close proximity between the guns and drugs at issue, the Tenth Circuit held that the defendant was entitled to safety valve relief because constructive possession of weapons—as opposed to actual possession— is insufficient to preclude application of the safety valve. The Ninth Circuit and Tenth Circuit’s decisions are in conflict, and this Court must grant certiorari to resolve a Circuit split on the following question: Does simultaneous constructive possession of drugs and firearms disqualify a defendant for safety valve relief? i RELATED CASES STATEMENT e United States of America v. Jesus Robeldo Aguilar, No. 2:21-cr-00113-GW, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judgment entered on Nov. 10, 2022. e United States of America v. Jesus Robeldo Aguilar, No. 22-50268, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered on Jan. 30, 2024. ii