United States v. Roybal (188 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 2016)

UNSEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Sentencing Memorandum for Defendant George Roybal, filed April 14,2015 (Doc; 846)(“Objections”). The Court held sentencing hearings on May 27, 2015, June 1, 2015, and June 2, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should apply a 2-level adjustment under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) § 2Dl,l(b)(l) for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with a drug-trafficking offense; (ii) whether the Court should impose a 2-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance; (iii) whether the Court should impose a 2-level adjustment under § 3C1.1 for willfully obstructing or impeding the administration of justice; (iv) whether the Court should increase Defendant George Roybal’s base offense from 24 to 26 for trafficking two kilograms of cocaine on April 10, 2012; (v) whether the Court should grant G. Roybal a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2; and (vi) whether the Court should vary from the advisory guideline range in fashioning an appropriate sentence for G. Roybal under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court will not impose a 2-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l), because G. Roy-bal has demonstrated that it is clearly improbable that the guns discovered at his house were used in connection with drug-trafficking offenses by showing that he used those guns for hunting. The Court will impose a 2-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(12), because the United States has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that distributing illegal drugs was one of G. Roybal’s primary uses for his residence. The Court will .impose a 2-level adjustment under § 3C1.1, because G. Roybal willfully instructed and impeded the administration of justice when he threatened a confidential informant and his or her family. The Court will increase G. Roybal’s base offense level from 24 to 26, because the United States has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that G. Roybal was involved in trafficking two kilograms of cocaine on April 10, 2012. The Court will not grant G. Roybal a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2, because there is no evidence that he is less culpable than the average participant in the Christopher Roybal Drug-Trafficking Organization (“C.’ Roybal DTO”). Finally, the Court will not grant G. Roybal’s request for a variance.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court includes this general factual background section to provide context to the case and tell a coherent story. The Court takes its facts entirely from: (i) the re-disclosed Presentence Report, filed April 8, 2015 (“PSR”); (ii) the Sealed Response to Defendant George Roybal’s Sentencing Memorandum, filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872)(“Response”); and (iii) the Indictment, filed December 12, 2012 (Doc. l)(“Indictment”). The Court will make findings of fact to resolve facts that G. Roybal disputes in a second factual background section.

In June 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) initiated an investigation code named Operation Rain Check into the C. Roybal DTO. See PSR ¶ 13, at 9. Operation Rain Check involved numerous investigative techniques, including multiple controlled purchases of kilogram-quantities of cocaine and marijuana using a confidential human source—“CHS-1.” Response at 2. During the course of the controlled purchases, CHS-1 met with and received drugs from G. Roybal and C. Roybal, who is G. Roybal’s- nephew. See PSR ¶¶ 15, 24, 25, at 9, 13. Operation Rain Check culminated in a nineteen-Defendant indictment that Plaintiff United States of America filed on December 12, 2012. See Indictment at 1. The FBI’s investigation into the Roybal DTO revealed that G. Roy-bal of Albuquerque, New Mexico—was an associate of the Roybal DTO. See PSR ¶ 18, at 10. “G. Roybal resided at 605 Parkside SE which agents believed was used as a stash house for the Roybal DTO.” PSR ¶ 18, at 10. According to the case agent, G. Roybal was very involved in the C. Roybal DTO because he stored money and drugs at his residence for C, Roybal. See PSR ¶23,' at 13. “G. ■ Roybal was identified in the conspiracy early on in the investigation and he was involved in two drug transactions with the CHS-1.” PSR ¶ 23, at 13.

The'first drug transaction in which G. Roybal was involved occurred on April 5, 2012. See PSR ¶ 24, at 13. This transaction involved G, Roybal meeting with CHS-1 and providing approximately 1.7 pounds of marijuana. See PSR ¶¶ 15, 24, at 10, 13. The next day, on April 5, 2012, CHS-1 met with C. Roybal at a predetermined location to pay $5,540.00 for the marijuana that G. Roybal provided on the previous day. See PSR ¶ 24, at 13. Laboratory reports confirm that the net weight of the marijuana is 622.8 grams. See PSR ¶ 24, at 13,

The second transaction in which G. Roy-bal was involved took place on April 10, 2012, when CHS-1 was scheduled to meet C. Roybal to purchase one kilogram of cocaine. See PSR ¶¶ 15, 25, at 9,13. At the meeting location, G, Roybal arrived in a black Chevy Monte Carlo and instructed the CHS-1 to contact C. Roybal by telephone, arid to tell him only time and location to meet, and not to discuss the pending transaction. See PSR ¶ 25, at 13. “The CHS subsequently met with 'C. Roybal at the predetermined location where the CHS paid Roybal $27,000 for approximately 1 kilogram of cocaine.” PSR ¶ 25, at 13. Laboratory reports confirm that the net weight of the cocaine is 998.5 grams. See PSR ¶ 25, at 13.

On that same day, G. Roybal delivered one kilogram of cocaine to “the CHS at the residence of the CHS.” PSR ¶ 26, at 13. “G. Roybal, who arrived in a black car, walked up to the car and got in the1 passenger seat and gave the CHS the cocaine.” PSR ¶ 26, at 13.

G. Roybal complained his radar detector was not plugged in, so it was not working and he got pulled over by law enforcement on his way over. The CHS took the cocaine into the residence and when the CHS returned the CHS paid G. Roybal $13,000. They counted the money before G. Roybal left. This same CHS provided information that he had been to G. Roybal’s residence located at 605 Parkside SE in 2011 and 2012. He described one occasion in 2011, where he observed a large trash bag with overflowing with [sic] one pound packages of marijuana and a backpack with cocaine.

PSR ¶ 26, at 13.

The next day, on April 11, 2Q12, “a call was intercepted over Roybal Phone 9 between C. Roybal and [Kurt] Gagarin.” PSR ¶ 27, at 13. Gagarin informed C. Roy-bal that he was sending someone to Albuquerque. See PSR ¶27, at 13. “Agents believed Gagarin was sending someone to Albuquerque to collect money from C. Roybal for high grade marijuana previously provided to C. Roybal.” PSR ¶ 27, at 13. Over the next couple of hours numerous calls were intercepted between C. Roybal and several co-conspirators including CHS-1 and Co-Defendant Jairus Granado. See PSR ¶ 27, at 13. During rqost of the calls, C. Roybal was attempting to collect money to send back with co-Defendant Chase Cameron to San Diego, California to give to Gagarin. See PSR ¶27, at 13. “Agents also intercepted two calls to Southwest Airlines reserving two seats to Las Vegas, Nevada for April 11, 2012.” PSR ¶ 26, at 13. The reservations were made in the name of G. Roybal and C. Roybal, and C. Roybal reserved them using “buddy passes.” PSR ¶ 27, at 13.

On that same day, agents initiated surveillance at the Albuquerque Sunport, and, at 2:51 p.m. agents observed C. Roybal pick up a male later identified as Cameron. See PSR ¶28, at 14. After stopping at several locations, they arrived at G. Roy-bal’s residence, 605 Parkside Drive SE in Albuquerque. See PSR ¶28, at 14. “[Cesar] Ramirez and G. Roybal were also at the residence.” PSR ¶27, at 13. They spent some time barbequing before C. Roybal retrieved a large amount of cash from one of the back rooms. See PSR ¶ 28, at 14. “The money was divided between Cameron, C. Roybal and G. Roybal as they drove back to the airport in order to get past security without being questioned regarding the origin of the money.” PSR ¶27, at 13. Agents observed Cameron meet with C. Roybal and G. Roybal near the gate where Cameron was waiting to board his flight. See PSR ¶28, at 14. The three of them then entered the restroom where surveillance was terminated. See PSR ¶28,.at 14. “Agents next observed G. Roybal and C. Roybal exit the airport without ever boarding a flight.” PSR ¶ 27, at 13. It was determined that C. Roybal provided Cameron with $31,500.00 in cash as partial payment toward a $50,000.00 drug debt for high-grade marijuana. See PSR ¶ 28 at 14.

On December 14, 2012, agents executed a search, warrant at G. Roybal’s residence, located at 605 Parkside Drive SE. See PSR ¶ 28, at 13. Agents did not find any money or drugs at the residence, but they located the following items:

PSR ¶ 29, at 14. On the day his residence was searched, G. Roybal was arrested, and he did not provide any post-arrest statements. See PSR ¶ 30, at 14. “G. Roybal’s residence was identified as a stash house for drugs and money and there were five firearms found inside the home.” PSR ¶ 30, at 14. One of the five firearms was found in the southeast corner of the den/dining room, and it was wrapped; however, “there were three firearms located under his bed in his bedroom which were accessible and unsecured.” PSR ¶30, at 14. They also found a digital scale in the kitchen. See PSR ¶ 30, at 14. “The agent confirmed that none of firearms were [sic] stolen.” PSR ¶ 30, at 14.

G. Roybal will be held accountable for the three drug transactions wherein he was involved in distributing marijuana and cocaine. The total amount of drugs after the two substances have been converted to their marijuana equivalency totals 400.32 kilograms. The monies which were provided to C. Cameron for marijuana totaled $31,500 which if converted to the marijuana equivalency based on the price of $1,800 per pound would total 17.5 pounds of marijuana. This results in a total of 408.26 kilograms of marijuana which does not impact the base offense level, however, it will be attributed to the defendant.

PSR ¶ 31, at 14.

On February 12, 2013, G. Roybal was released oh conditions of supervision pending resolution of the charges against him. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15. Subsequently, on November 13, 2013, G. Roybal approached an confidential human source—“CHS-2”— at CHS-2’s workplace. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15. G. Roybal informed CHS-2 that G. Roybal knew CHS-1 was related to CHS-2. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15. “G. Roybal went on to tell CHS-2 that he knew about CHS-l’s medical condition and he was going to end up in a wheel chair for what CHS-1 had done.” PSR ¶ 32, at 15. G. Roybal stated that he and his people had been watching CHS-l’s residence, and that they knew when the children came home. See PSR ¶ 32, at 14. “G. Roybal added he and his people were going to hit CHS-1 where it hurts most and make CHS-l’s family pay.” PSR ¶ 32, at 15. G. Roybal further stated that, if CHS-1 went to Las Vegas, New Mexico, CHS-1 and his family would be in grave danger. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15. “CHS-2 told G. Roybal that CHS-1 babysits CHS-2’s child on a regular basis and that CHS-2 did not want the child to be hurt.” PSR ¶ 32, at 15. G. Roybal told CHS-2: “[o]h well, you know how it is.” PSR ¶ 32, at 15.

CHS-1 contacted the FBI, and informed it of the threat that G. Roybal had made against CHS-1 and CHS-l’s family. See PSR ¶ 33, at 15. Agents verified the information with CHS-2 “who stated he/she was hesitant to continue to be cooperative with law enforcement as CHS-2 was in fear that G. Roybal would retaliate against CHS-1 and/or CHS-2 or CHS-2’s family.” PSR ¶ 33, at 15. It was determined that this threat to CHS-1 and to CHS-l’s ■ family had the purpose of influencing, delaying, and preventing CHS-l’s testimony in an official proceeding. See PSR ¶ 33, at 15. A warrant was issued for C. Roybal, and he surrendered on the outstanding warrant. See PSR ¶ 33, at 15.

THE COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON THE MAY 27, 2015, JUNE 1, 2015, AND JUNE 2, 2015, EVIDENTIARY SENTENCING HEARINGS

Rule 32(i)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that courts “must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). The findings of fact in MOO shall serve as the Court’s essential findings for purposes of rule 32(i)(3)(B). In making these findings, the rules of evidence do not bind the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3); United States v. Graham, 413 F.3d 1211, 1221 n. 10 (10th Cir. 2005)(“In any event, the Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable to sentencing proceedings.”)(citing Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3)). The Court makes the following factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. In the summer of 2011, the FBI began its investigation, code named Operation Rain Check, into primary target C. Roybal as head of the C. Roybal DTO, using surveillance, GPS tracking, wiretaps, roving wiretaps, trash pulls,' and other investigative techniques. See PSR ¶ 13, at 9; Response at 2. >

2. Soon after beginning its investigation, the FBI identified G. Roybal—C. Roybal’s uncle—as a person of interest in the Roy-bal DTO. See PSR ¶ 18, at 10; id. ¶ 23, at 13.

3. Granado was a cocaine and marijuana distributor who sold drugs for C. Roybal. See Transcript of Hearing 32:2-7 (Long, Nelson)(taken May 27, 2015)(“May 27th Tr.”).

4. On March 15, 2012, C. Roybal provided drugs to Granado and Granado paid C. Roybal for drugs that C. Roybal had previously provided to him. See May 27th Tr. at 32:11-37:9 (Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between Jairus Granado and Christopher Roybal' (recorded March 14, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-l)(admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 1); Transcript of Telephone Call between Jairus Granado and Christopher Roybal (recorded March 15, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-2)(admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 2); Transcript of Telephone Call between Jairus Granado and Christopher Roybal (recorded March 16, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-5)(admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 5)(“March 16th Telephone Call”).

5. On March 16, 2012, Granado and C. Roybal spoke on the telephone about meeting up so that Granado could provide C. Roybal with money for the new drugs that C. Roybal had provided to Granado on March 15,2012. See May 27th Tr. at 36:15-38:24 (Long, Nelson); March 16th Telephone Call.

6. Because C. Roybal was unavailable to meet with Granado, C, Roybal directed Granado to meet with G. Roybal at his residence, located at 605 Parkside Place SE. See May 27th Tr. at 36:15-38:24 (Long, Nelson); March 16th Telephone Cafi.

7. During the March 16, 2012, telephone caU between Granado and C. Roybal, C. Roybal provided Granado with G. Roybal’s telephone number so that Granado and G. Roybal could be in direct contact. See May 27th Tr. at 36:15-38:24 (Long, Nelson); March 16th Telephone Call. .

8. Granado knew where G. Roybal’s residence was located and had been there before. See May 27th Tr. at 36:15-38:24 (Long, Nelson); March 16th Telephone Call.

9. On March 16, 2012, Granado dropped off money at G. Roybal’s residence, located at 605 Parkside Place SE, that he owed C. Roybal for a prior illegal drug transaction.

See May 27th Tr. at 36:15-38:24 (Long, Nelson); March 16th Telephone Call; Excerpt of Search Warrant Affidavit ¶ 79, at 47-49, filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-7)(ad-mitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 7); March 16, 2012 FBI Surveillance Log (dated March 16, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Dqc. 872-4)(admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 4)(“March 16, 2012 FBI Surveillance Log”).

10. Gagarin was a large scale marijuana distributor in California. See May 27th Tr. at 41:6-23 (Long, Nelson).

11. On March 19, 2012, C. Roybal and Gagarin spoke on the telephone and Gagarin attempted to collect money from C. Roybal for marijuana that Gagarin had previously supplied to C. Roybal. See May 27th Tr. at 41:24-32:17 (Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 2 and Christopher Roybal (recorded March 19, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-25)(admitted at hearing as .Government Exhibit 25)(“March 19th Telephone Call”).

12. In- the March 19, 2012, telephone call, Gagarin and C. Roybal discussed how C. Roybal could most easily get the funds to California. See May 27th Tr. at 41:24-43:23 (Long, Nelson); March 19th Telephone Call.

13. During the call, Gagarin and C. Roy-bal also, discussed the possibility of C. Roy-bal going out of town, and C. Roybal reassured Gagarin that if he were to leave, his uncle would take care of everything. See May 27th Tr. at 41:24-43:23 (Long, Nelson); March 19th Telephone Call.

14. On March 20, 2012, C. Roybal and Gagarin spoke on the telephone again, and C. Roybal explained to Gagarin that G. Roybal was in possession of the outstanding debts from people who sold drugs for the C. Roybal DTO. See May 27th Tr. at 43:23-47:22 (Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 2 and Christopher Roybal (recorded March 20, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-26)(ad-mitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 26)(“March 20th Telephone Call”).

15. C. Roybal reassured Gagarin that his uncle would take care of everything. See May 27th Tr. at 43:23-47:22 (Long, Nelson); March 20th Telephone Call.

16. G.' Roybal and Gagarin knew each other. See May 27th Tr. at 43:23-47:22 (Long, Nelson); March 20th Telephone Call; Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 2 and Christopher Roybal (recorded April 9, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-21)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 21).

17. In an April 9, 2012, telephone call between C. Roybal and Gagarin, Gagarin asked whether someone might come out to California, and C. Roybal responded that his uncle was feeling better, and that maybe he would send him as a courier to California with money for Gagarin. See May 27th Tr. at 50:13-52:2 (Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 2 and Christopher Roybal (recorded April 9, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-21)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 21).

18. C. Roybal and Gagarin, however, ultimately decided that Gagarin would instead send someone to New Mexico from California to collect the money. See May 27th Tr. at 52:1-55:5 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 4, filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-10)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 10)(“Summary of Events”); Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 2 and Christopher Roybal (recorded April 15, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-24)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 24).

19. Gagarin ultimately sent Cameron to New Mexico. See May 27th Tr. at 55:1-18 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1 (dated February 27, 2015), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-23)(“FBI Debrief with John Doe 3”)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 23).

20. On April 11, 2012, C. Roybal picked up Cameron at the Albuquerque Sunport. See May 27th Tr. at 55:1-18 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

21. After picking up Cameron, C. Roybal and Cameron traveled around Albuquerque for a short time. See May 27th Tr. at 55:1-18 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

22. At approximately 2:59 p.m., C. Roy-bal and G. Roybal spoke on the telephone, and C. Roybal asked G. Roybal if he was going to be available around 4:00 p.m. See May 27th Tr. at 55:25-56:7 (Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between George Roybal and Christopher Roybal (recorded April 11, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-22)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 22).

23. G. Roybal stated that he would be available, and, subsequently, at 3:51 p.m., C. Roybal and Cameron arrived at G. Roy-bal’s residence, located at 605 Parkside SE. See May 27th Tr. at 55:25-56:25 (Court, Long, Nelson); Transcript of Telephone Call between George Roybal and Christopher Roybal (recorded April II, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-22)(ad-mitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 22); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

24. C. Roybal and Cameron remained inside of G. Roybal’s residence, located at 605 Parkside, for approximately thirty minutes. See May 27th Tr. at 55:8-25 (Court, Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

25. Inside the residence, C. Ramirez, G. Roybal, and C. Roybal were barbequing. See May 27th Tr. at 55:1-63:15 (Court, Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

26. At one point while they were barbequing, G. Roybal and C. Roybal went to a back bedroom and started stacking $31,500.00 in cash into piles, which they distributed to C. Roybal, G. Roybal, and Cameron. See May 27th Tr. at 62:14-64-12 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

27. This money was being given to Cameron as partial payment toward a $50,000.00 debt he owed Gagarin for high-grade marijuana. See May 27th Tr. at 58:16-60:25 (Long, Nelson).

28. At 4:20 p.m., C. Roybal, G. Roybal, arid Cameron left G. Roybal’s residence together, got into C. Roybal’s vehicle, and traveled to the Albuquerque Sunport. See May -27th Tr. at 56:8-22 (Long, Nelson); icL at 62:14-64-2 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 8 at 1.

29. While traveling to the airport, they were on the phone making reservations through an airline. See May 27th Tr. at 62:8-10 (Long, Nelson).

30. When they arrived at the airport, C. Roybal needed to park the car, so Cameron and G. Roybal went through security together. See May 27th Tr. at 56:23-58:7 (Long, Nelson); id. at 60:4-64-2 (Long, Nelson).

31. C. Roybal later went through airport security alone after parking his vehicle. See May 27th Tr. at 56:23-58:7 (Long, Nelson); id. at 60:4-64:2- (Long, Nelson).

32. Once inside the airport, Cameron, G. Roybal, and C. Roybal met in the bathroom in order to re-pool the money together for Cameron to take back to California with him. See May 27th Tr. at 56:23-58:7 (Long, Nelson); id. at 60:4-64:2 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1,

33. G. Roybal and C. Roybal took turns going into the stall next to Cameron and handing the funds they had organized at G. Roybal’s residence underneath the stall to- Cameron to transport to California. See May 27th Tr. at 56:23-58:7 (Long, Nelson); id. at 60:4-64-2 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

34., During this time, Gagarin, the marijuana supplier, in California, also spoke on the telephone to C. Roybal. See May 27th Tr. at 58:8-11 (Long, Nelson).

35. Gagarin and C. Roybal discussed how much C. Roybal would be sending with Cameron to California. See May 27th Tr. at 58:12-21 (Long, Nelson).

36. C. Roybal owed $50,000.00 and he agreed to send $36,000.00 to Gagarin. See May 27th Tr. at 58:16-21 (Long, Nelson).

37. Cameron ultimately transported $31,500.00 to Gagarin in California. See May 27th Tr. at 55:1-18 (Long, Nelson); May 27th Tr. at 60:4-25 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 3 at 1.

38. Before the April 11, 2012, events involving Cameron’s visit from California to Albuquerque on behalf of Gagarin, G. Roybal was involved in two one-kilogram cocaine transactions on April 10, 2012. See May 27th Tr. at 64:15-76:25 (Long, Nelson).

39. The first cocaine transaction on April 10, 2012, involved co-Defendant John Doe 1, who agreed to cooperate with the United States post-arrest. See May 27th Tr. at 64:15-65:1 (Long, Nelson).

40. John Doe 1 lived in Las Vegas, New Mexico. See May 27th Tr. at 65:2-4 (Long, Nelson).

41. C. Roybal would provide marijuana and cocaine to John Doe 1, who would sell it. See May 27th Tr. at 65:8-18 (Long, Nelson).

42. John Doe 1 would convert the cocaine into crack before selling it. See May 27th Tr. at 65:15-18 (Long, Nelson).

43. On April 9, 2012, John Doe 1 complained to C. Roybal about the quality of the cocaine that C. Roybal had supplied to him previously, C. Roybal indicated that he had another supply that he would like to provide to John Doe 1, and they discussed the possibility of a price reduction. See May 27th Tr. at 65:19-67:3 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John’ Doe 1 at 1-2 (dated March 26, 2015), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-13)(“FBI Debrief with John Doe l”)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 13).

44. On April 10, 2012, C. Roybal tells John Doe 1 that he would be able to deliver one kilogram of cocaine to him that day. See May 27th Tr. at 67:4-14 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 3.

45. On the evening of April 10, 2012, G. Roybal traveled from Albuquerque to Las Vegas and provided John Doe 1 with one kilogram of cocaine at approximately 10:45 p.m., and John Doe 1 provided $13,000.00 to G. Roybal for the kilo of cocaine, as half payment. See May 27th Tr. at 69:4-77:15 (Long, Nelson); id. at 156:16-24 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 1 at 2; Text Message from George Roybal to Christopher Roybal (dated April 10, 2012, 8:39 p.m.), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-14)(“April 10th Text Message”)(admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 14); Transcript of Telephone Call between John Doe 1 and Christopher Roybal (recorded April 10, 2012, 9:59 p.m.), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-15)(“April 10th Telephone Call, 9:59 p.m.”)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 15).

46. John Doe 1 had previously been to G. Roybal’s residence, located at 605 Parkside Place SE, on two prior occasions between 2011 and 2012. See May 27th Tr. at 77:24-79:9 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 1 at 2.

47. On one occasion, he stopped by G. Roybal’s residence at C. Roybal’s request and he observed a trash bag overflowing with one-pound packages of marijuana and a backpack containing five kilograms of cocaine in G. Roybal’s kitchen. See May 27th Tr. at 77:24-79:9 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief with John Doe 1 at 2.

48. The morning after the cocaine transaction with John Doe 1, G. Roybal and C. Roybal speak on the telephone, and G. Roybal tells C. Roybal that his “shoes”— coded language for the funds from John Doe 1—are at G. Roybal’s house. See May 27th Tr. at 75:5-15 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 4.

49. The second cocaine transaction on April 10, 2012, involved CHS-1, who purchased one kilogram of cocaine from the C. Roybal DTO. See May 27th Tr. at 67:20-68:21 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 3; FBI Debrief Following April 10, 2012 Controlled Purchase at 1-2 (dated April 13, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-12)(“April 10th Controlled Purchase Debrief’)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 12).

50. On the morning of April 10, 2012, at 9:50 a.m., G. Roybal traveled to CHS-l’s house and briefly spoke with CHS-1 regarding the sale of one kilogram of cocaine to CHS-1. See May 27th Tr. at 67:20-68:21 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 3; April 10th Controlled Purchase Debrief at 1-2.

51. G. Roybal told CHS-1 not to call C. Roybal, and that if he did, to be very vague and to only discuss the time and location of a meet. See May 27th Tr. at 67:20-68:21 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 3; April 10th Controlled Purchase Debrief at 1-2.

52. Later, at 11:00 a.m., C. Roybal sold CHS-1 one kilogram of cocaine. See May 27th Tr. at 68:3-21 (Long, Nelson); Summary of Events at 3; April 10th Controlled Purchase Debrief at 1-2.

53. G. Roybal was also involved in a controlled purchase of marijuana on April 4, 2012. See May 27th Tr. at 81:16-82:3 (Long, Nelson); FBI Debrief Following April 4, 2012 Controlled Purchase at 1 (dated April 6, 2012), filed April 28, 2015 (Doc. 872-8)(“April 4th Controlled Purchase Debrief’)(admitted at hearing as Government Exhibit 8).

54. On April 4, 2012, at approximately 11:42 a.m., G. Roybal arrived in a black Monte Carlo and delivered 1.7 pounds of marijuana to the CHS on behalf of C. Roybal. See May 27th Tr. at 81:16-82:3 (Long, Nelson); April 4th CQntrolled Purchase Debrief at 1. ...

55. On April 5, 2012, the CHS met with C. Roybal and paid $5,540.00 for the marijuana provided by G. Roybal on the previous day. See PSR ¶ 24, at 13.

56. On December 14, 2012, FBI agents executed a search warrant at G. Roybal’s residence located at 605 Parkside Drive SE. See PSR ¶ 29, at 14.

57: Agents did not find any money or drugs at the residence, but they did locate five firearms, six cellular telephones, and a digital scale. See PSR ¶29, at 14; May 27th Tr. at 151:23-152:24 (Long, Nelson).

58. Three of the firearms found during the search of G. Roybal’s residence were rifles and two were shotguns. See PSR ¶ 29, at 14.

59. None of the firearms were loaded with ammunition and G. Roybal kept no ammunition in the house. See Transcript of Hearing at 70:10-16 (Winder, G. Roy-bal)(taken June 1, 2015)(“June 1st Tr.”).

60. A Savage Rifle Model 64 22LR was recovered in the den/dining room next to the front door. See PSR ¶ 29, at 14.

61. The Savage Rifle Model 64 22LR was wrapped in a box,.had never been fired, and was a Christmas gift that G. Roybal bought for his daughter. See PSR ¶29, at 14; June 1st Tr. at 68:21-69:18 (Winder, G. Roybal); Photograph of Savage Rifle Model 64 22LR, entered into evidence June 1, 2015 (admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 27).

62. G. Roybal purchased and possessed the Savage Rifle Model 64 22LR solely for hunting, and not for drug trafficking.

63. Under G. Roybal’s bed, agents also discovered two rifles: a 308 Remington 700 rifle with a scope and a 243 Remington 7400 rifle with a scope and magazine. See PSR ¶ 29, at 14.

64. G. Roybal owned and possessed both the 243 Remington 7400 rifle with a scope and the 308 Remington 700 rifle with a scope solely for hunting, and not for drug trafficking. See June 1st Tr. at 56:20-57:3 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal).

65. Agents also discovered two shotguns at G. Roybal’s residence: a New England Padner Model 20-gauge shotgun under G. Roybal’s bed and a Weatherby Ninety Two 12-gauge shotgun in G. Roybal’s bedroom closet. See PSR ¶ 29, at 14.

66. J. Roybal’s parents gave the New England Padner Model 20-gauge, shotgun to him as a present for his eighth birthday, right after he completed his hunter safety course. See June 1st Tr. at 55:25-56:7 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal); Photograph of G New England Padner Model 20-gauge shotgun, entered into evidence June 1, 2015 (admitted at the hearing as Defendant’s Exhibit 32).

67. J. Roybal used the 20-gauge shotgun to hunt dove and G. Roybal shot the gun several times while hunting. See June 1st Tr. at 56:4-19 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal).

68. G. Roybal ownéd and possessed the New England Padner Model 20-gauge shotgun solely for hunting, and not for drug trafficking. See June 1st Tr. at 56:4-19 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal).

69. G. Roybal used the Weatherby Ninety Two 12-gauge shotgun to hunt birds including dove, quail, pheasant, goose, and turkey, and that the weapon was a birthday gift to him from his wife and children. See June 1st Tr. at 8:21-9:24 (Court, Long, J. Roybal); id. at 54:21-55:20 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal); Photograph of Weatherby Shotgun, entered into evidence June 1, 2015 (admitted at the hearing as Government Exhibit 30); June 1st Tr. at 9:20-10:18 (Court, Long, J. Roybal); id. at 55:10-20 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal); Photograph of G. Roybal with Turkey and Weatherby Shotgun, entered into evidence June 1, 2015 (admitted at the hearing as Defendant’s Exhibit L).

70. G. Roybal owned and possessed the Weatherby Ninety Two 12-gauge shotgun solely for hunting, and not for drug trafficking. See June 1st Tr. at 8:21-9:24 (Court, Long, J. Roybal); id. at 54:21-55:20 (Court, Winder, G. Roybal)..

71. After G. Roybal’s arrest in December 2012, he was released on conditions of supervision pending resolution of the federal charges against him. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Plea Agreement ¶ 12, at 4-5, filed January 14, 2015 (Doc. 735)(“Plea Agreement”).

72. At that time, G. Roybal learned that CHS-1, to whom C. Roybal and G. Roybal had distributed cocaine, was working at the direction of the FBI. See Plea Agreement ¶ 12, at 4-5.

73. On or about November 13, 2013, G. Roybal approached CHS-2 at CHS-2’s workplace, Adelante Trucking, located in Albuquerque. See PSR ¶32, at 15; Response at 16; Plea Agreement ¶ 12, at 4-5; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); FBI Report at 1 (dated January 30, 2014)(“Jan. 30th FBI Report”)(admitted at the hearing as Defendant’s Exhibit P).

74. G. Roybal indicated to CHS-2' that G. Roybal knew CHS-1 was related to CHS-2. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Response at . 16; Plea Agreement ¶ 12, at 5; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

75. G. Roybal told CHS-2 that he knew about CHS-l’s medical condition and that CHS-1 was going to end up in a wheel chair for what CHS-1 had done. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

76. G. Roybal also stated that he and his people had been watching CHS-l’s residence, and that they knew when the children came home. See PSR ¶32, at 15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

77. G. Roybal added that he and his people were going to hit CHS-1 where it hurts the most, and make CHS-l’s family pay. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

78. G. Roybal further stated to CHS-2 that if CHS-1 went to Las Vegas, New Mexico, CHS-1 and CHS-l’s family would be in grave danger. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

79. CHS-2 told G. Roybal that CHS-1 babysits CHS-2’s child on a regular basis and that CHS-2 did not want the child to be hurt. See PSR ¶ 32, at 15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

80. G. Roybal responded to CHS-2: “oh well, you- know how it is.” See PSR ¶ 32, at'15; Response at 16; May 27th Tr. at 80:10-81:15 (Long, Nelson); Jan. 30th FBI Report at 1.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Second Superseding Indictment, filed September 9, 2014 (Doc. 626)(“Su-perseding Indictment”), charged G. Roybal with the following Counts: (i) Count 1, Conspiracy—Distribution of 5 Kilograms and More of a Mixture and Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); (ii) Count 5, Distribution of 500 grams or More of Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); (iii) Count 15, Distribution of a Controlled Substance, a Mixture and Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.' §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D); (iv) Count 37, Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); (v) Counts 42-43, Use of a Telephone to Facilitate a Drug Trafficking Offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); and (vi) Count 61, Tampering with a Witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A). See Superseding Indictment at 2-31. On January 14, 2015, G. Roybal pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of Witness Tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A).' See Plea Agreement ¶ 3, ’ at 2. Among other things, the Defendant’s Admission of Facts in the Plea Agreement states:

From on or from about August 2011 through on or about December 2012, I was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine with co-defendant Christopher Roybal in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area. Over the course of the conspiracy, I helped facilitate Christopher Roybal’s cocaine distribution activities by distributing cocaine on Christopher Roybal’s behalf and by helping to arrange cocaine deals for Christopher Roybal.

During the course of the conspiracy, I frequently communicated with Christopher Roybal on his various and changing cellular telephones. My telephone number was (505) 239-3039. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had received authorization to intercept communications over several of Christopher Roybal’s telephones.

After my arrest, I learned that a confidential human source (CHS1) to whom Christopher Roybal and myself had distributed cocaine was working at the direction of the FBI. On or about November 13, 2013, while I was on pretrial release on this case, I approached another person, referred herein Confidential Human Source 2 (CHS2), at CHS-2’s workplace, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I knew that CHS2 was related to CHS1. If this matter were to proceed to trial, I admit that the United States would prove that I used the threat of physical force against CHS1 by threatening to cause physical harm to CHS1 and CHSl’s family, with the intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of CHS1 in an official proceeding, that being the trial in this underlying case (12-3182 JB). .

Plea Agreement ¶¶ 9-12, at 3-4.

The United States Probation .Office (“USPO”) re-disclosed the PSR on April 8, 2015. Relying on U.S.S.G § 2D1.1, the USPO calculates a base offense level of 26 for G. Roybal. See PSR ¶ 38, at 16. The USPO applies a 2-level increase to G. Roy-bal’s base offense level under § 2Dl.l(b)(l), because, during the search of G. Roybal’s residence, agents located five firearms within the home. The USPO states:

Three of the firearms were located under the bed in the master bedroom and a digital scale was located in the kitchen. This was a residence that was identified as a stash house and, therefore, based on the unsecured firearms located under the defendant’s bed, a two level increase is warranted.

PSR ¶ 43, at 17. The USPO also applies a 2-level increase pursuant to § 2Dl.l(b)(12), because that section provides that, if the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, increase by 2 levels. See PSR ¶ 44, at 17. According to the USPO, a 2-level increase is warranted under § 2Dl.l(b)(12), because G. Roybal’s home was used to store drugs and cash for the DTO. See PSR ¶ 44, at 17-18. Further, the USPO applies a 2-level increase under § 3C1.1, because

[t]he defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and the obstructive ’conduct related to the defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or a closely related offense; therefore, two levels are added. The instant offense involved the defendant threatening a witness.

PSR ¶ 48, at 18. The USPO next applies a 3-level increase under § 3C1.3 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147 for G. Roybal committed the offense of Tampering with a Witness while on release. See PSR ¶ 49, at 18.-. The USPO then recommends a 3-level decrease for G. Roybal’s acceptance of responsibility. See PSR ¶¶ 52-53, at 18, The PSR thus calculates G. Roybal’s total offense level to be 32. See PSR ¶ 54, at 18. The PSR also calculates a criminal history category score of 0. See PSR ¶¶ 56-62, at 19-20, G. Roy-bal’s total offense level of 32 and criminal-history category I results in a Guideline imprisonment range of 121 months to 151 months. See PSR ¶ 92, at 26.

1. G. Roybal’s Sentencing Memorandum.

G. Roybal filed his Objections on April 14, 2015. G. Roybal first objects to the PSR’s application of the 2-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l). See Objections at 8. According to G. Roybal, § 2Dl.l(b)(l) is inapplicable in this case, because one of the' guns that was retrieved from his residence was an heirloom birthday gift and another was a Christmas gift to his daughter.'See Objections at 8. Additionally, G. Roybal maintains that the remaining weapons were used for hunting purposes and that he has been an avid licensed hunter for over thirty-five years. See Objections at 8. G. Roybal argues that a § 2Dl.l(b)(17) adjustment is also not warranted. See Objections at 9. According to G. Roybal, § 2Dl.l(b)(17) applies if “the defendant maintained a premises for the purposes' of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance....” and G. Roybal contends that the home where he resided was not maintained for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Objections at 9. Further, G. Roybal asserts that no drugs or cash were found at the home. See Objections at 9.

G, Roybal next objects to the USPO’s application of the § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice. See Objections at 9. G. Roybal’s Plea Agreement states, in pertinent part:

RECOMMENDATIONS

14. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the United States and the Defendant recommend as follows:

a.' USSG § 2J1.2, Obstruction of Justice, is the sentencing guideline that should apply to Count 61, Tampering with a Witness.

Plea Agreement at 5. G. Roybal contends that,

[i]n the plea agreement, the parties agreed that “USSG § 2J1.2, Obstruction of Justice, is the sentencing .guideline that should apply to Count 61, Tampering with a Witness.” The application note to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 sets forth the following: “If the defendant is convicted of an offense covered by ... § 2J1.2, Obstruction of Justice ... this adjustment is not to be applied to the offense level for that offense except if a significant further obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the obstruction offense itself (e.g., if the defendant threatened a witness during the course of the prosecution for the obstruction offense.).” In this case, Mr. Roybal did not threaten any witness during the course of the prosecution for the obstruction offense.

Objections at 9 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, G. Roybal asserts that the Court should reject the USPO’s assessment of 2 levels under § 3C1.1. See Objections at 9.

G. Roybal objects to the base level offense that the PSR sets forth. See Objections at 9. G. Roybal states that the USPO correctly calculated the base offense level as 24 in the original PSR. According to G. Roybal, however, “[t]he information that the United States Probation Office relies upon to increase the offense level from 24 to 26 is solely based upon the information the United States recently provided.” Objections at 9-10 (emphasis in original).

Mr. Roybal entered a guilty plea to a one-count information on January 14, 2015. Over two months later, the United States provided undersigned counsel discovery from confidential informants. These informants have no credibility. Up to March 30, 2015, the United States had not provided any information with regard to these confidential informants. Mr. Roybal is not disputing the credibility of the FBI Agents who conducted the interviews. Mr. Roybal is disputing the credibility of the confidential informants. It can be presumed that these confidential informants are receiving benefits through their allegations. Mr. Roybal submits that this Court not consider them self-serving statements without these persons coming into Court for an evidentiary hearing.

Objections at 10 (emphasis in original). G. Roybal requests the Court, therefore, to calculate the base level at 24. See Objections at 10.

Finally, G. Roybal contends that a 4-level reduction from a base level of 24 is warranted under § 3B1.2(a). See Objections at 10. According to G. Roybal, § 3B1.2(a) provides that a decrease of 4 levels is appropriate if the defendant was a minimal participant. See Objections at 10. Further, G. Roybal states that the application note to § 3B1.2(a) establishes that “[sjubsection (a) applies to a defendant described in Application Note 3(A) who plays a minimal role in concerted activity.” Objections at 10. G. Roybal asserts that he was not the leader of the drug organization and that his role was “limited to transporting drugs” for C, Roybal. Objections at 10. G. Roybal contends that, while in his Admission of Facts, he admitted to “helping facilitate” and “helping arrange cocaine deals” for C. Roybal, he “lacked knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others.” Objections at 10. Specifically, G. Roybal states that he did not know of the drug organization that C. Roybal had created. See Objections at 10-11.

In the FD-302 that the United States has provided, Mr. Roybal' discussed a “pending transaction ...” Mr. Roybal spoke with the confidential informant, but Mr. Roybal did not deliver any cocaine.

Mr. Roybal’s culpability is close to the person identified in. the same sphere as the three other woman [sic] who received probated sentences. Specifically, Mr. Roybal is identified in the sphere identified as “Drug Mules” on page 12 of the PSR., The United States viewed these three woman [sic] as “drug mules” and they received a significant benefit.

Objections at 11. In sum, G, Roybal requests that the Court reduce the offense level by 4 levels based upon G, Roybal’s allegedly minimal role in the Roybal DTO. See Objections at 11.

2. The Addendum.

On April 16, 2015, the USPO responded to the Objections. See Addendum to the Re-Disclosed Presentence Report, disclosed April 16, 2015 (“Addendum”). In response to G. Roybal’s first Objection, the USPO concludes that the adjustment will remain unchanged. See Addendum at 1. The USPO explains:

The United States Probation Office attributed, the firearm located by the front door of the residence to the drug activity which consisted of storing drugs and drug monies. Upon further contact with the case agent, he confirmed with the agent in charge of the search at defendant’s residence that the firearm by the front door was wrapped. This information was added to the re-disclosed pre-sentence report. It is noted, there were additional firearms located in his residence under the defendant’s bed and they were accessible as they were not secured. The defendant’s residence was identified as a “stash house,” thus, based on this information the adjustment will remain unchanged at this time.

Addendum at 1.

Addressing G. Roybal’s second objection, the USPO says that the enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(12) applies “based on information contained in discovery, which identified the defendant’s residence as a stash house where drugs and money were stored for C. Roybal.” Addendum at 2. The USPO concedes that neither drugs nor cash were found at the time the search warrant was executed; according to the USPO, however, the investigation revealed money and drugs were stored at the residence. See Addendum at 2. The USPO concludes, therefore, that the enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(12) is warranted.

Regarding G. Roybal’s third objection— that an enhancement is unwarrapted under § 3C1.1—the USPO responds that a 2-level increase is warranted, because G. Roybal’s conduct consisted of threatening, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully influencing a confidential informant. See Addendum at 2. In response to G. Roybal’s fourth objection, the USPO contends that it added the information from confidential informants once it received the material from the United States. See Addendum at 2. According to the USPO, “[t]he additional drug quantity increased the offense level and as such the presentence repprt was re-disclosed.” Addendum at 2. Moreover, the USPO states that an evidentiary hearing may be required for the parties to resolve disputed confidential informant issues. See Addendum at 2.

Addressing G. Roybal’s fifth objection— that the Court should grant a 4-level reduction because G. Roybal was a minimal participant in the offense—the USPO explains:

The United States Probation Office did not assess an aggravating or mitigating role adjustment as to this defendant. While the defendant was actively involved in drug transactions and in storing drugs and money for the DTO, he did not appear to be directing anyone in the conspiracy for an aggravated role adjustment. However, based on this conduct, the defendant also did not have a mitigating role in the offense. This is further evidenced by his subsequent conduct in tampering with a witness.

Addendum at 2.

3. The Response

The United States responded to the Objections on April 28, 2015. See Response at 1. The United States asks the Court to sustain G. Roybal’s objection to the PSR’s § 2Dl.l(b)(l) application. See Response at 17. . The United States asserts that § 2Dl.l(b)(l)’s application note 11 clarifies the scope of the enhancement:

The enhancement for weapon possession in subsection (b)(1) reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The enhancement should not be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.' For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at the defendant’s residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle.

Response at 17 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l), app. n. 11). First, regarding the rifle in the front room, the United States agrees that it was in a box and appears to be new. See Response at 17. Second, as to the other firearms located in G. Roybal’s residence, the United States contends that “the reports related to the search warrant did not indicate whether the rifles were loaded” and that “there is no mention of ammunition in the evidence log.” Response at 18. Based on this information, the United States assumes that the weapons were not loaded. See Response at 18. Moreover, the United States agrees that the three rifles under the bed and the one in the closet are consistent with rifles used for hunting, noting that there are other indications in G. Roybal’s house that he was, in fact, a hunter. See Response at 18. The United States concludes that “the location of the weapons (being in the master bedroom, other than the new rifle in the box in the living room) and the fact that they appear to have been unloaded counsel against assessing this enhancement.” Response at 18.

The United States similarly asks the Court to sustain G. Roybal’s objection to the USPO’s application of an enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(12), which allows for a 2-level increase where a premises is maintained for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. See Response at 18. The United States first cites to application note 17, which in pertinent parts, states:

Subsection (b)(12) applies to a defendant who knowingly maintains a . premises (i.e., a building, room, or enclosure) for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution.

Manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance need not be the sole purpose for which the premises was maintained, but must be one of the defendant’s primary or principal uses for the premises, rather than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral uses for the premises. In making this determination, the court should consider how frequently the premises was used by the defendant for ... distributing a controlled substance and how frequently the premises was used by the defendant for lawful purposes.

Response at 18 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, app. n. 17).

The United States states that it disagrees with the PSR’s description of G. Roybal’s residence on Parkside as a “stash house.” Response at 19. The United States states that, based on the evidence in the case,

the defendant offered his house on Park-side to Chris Roybal and Chris’ various associates for the purpose of facilitating drug transactions. Over the year-and-a-half investigation, we know of several drug deals and drug-related transactions (such as the payment of proceeds) that occurred there, including (i) Granado delivering drug proceeds to George at George’s residence on March 14, 2012, (ii) George keeping the $13,000 cash that George picked up from John Doe 1 on April 10, 2012, at George’s house; (iii) the April 11, 2012 events in which Chris and George retrieved the $26,500 from a bedroom in George’s house for John Doe 3 to take to California; (iv) John Doe 1 stating that John Doe 1 observed other drugs (cocaine and marijuana) at George’s residence; and (v) the discovery of a digital scale in George’s kitchen. These events demonstrate George’s intricate involvement in the conspiracy, discussed in greater detail below.

Response at 19. In light of this evidence and because the Parkside residence was also G. Roybal’s principal residence that he shared with his family, the United States concludes that it does not fit within the definition set forth in § 2Dl.l(b)(12)’s application notes and that the enhancement should not apply. See Response at 19.

The United States next asks the Court to overrule G. Roybal’s third objection, to the USPO’s application of the § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice. See Response at 22 (citing PSR ¶48, at 18). The United States contends that G. Roy-bal’s argument that “he did not threaten any witness during the course of the prosecution for the obstruction offense” is a confusing and circular argument. See Response at 22. According to the United States, the facts indicate that G. Roybal purposefully sought to dissuade testimony of one of the United States’ key witnesses, CHS-1, by threatening to harm CHS-1 and his family. See Response at 22.

The United States likewise requests that the Court overrule G. Roybal’s objection to the base level offense of 26, the PSR sets forth. See Response at 19. The United States contends that there is sufficient information, based upon twenty-six exhibits attached to the Response, to support an offense level of 26, as the PSR reflects. See Response at 19-20. According to the United States, under § 2Dl.l(c)(7), the United States must establish at least 2 kilograms but less than 3.6 kilograms of coeainé for an offense level of 26. See Response at 20. By contrast, for an offense level of 24, the United States must establish at least 500 grams but less ■ than 2 kilograms of cocaine. See Response at 20. The United States asserts that two of the transactions would establish an offense level of 24. See Response at 20. First, G. Roybal delivered approximately two pounds of marijuana to CHS-1 on April 4, 2012. See Response at 20. Second, G. Roy-bal went to CHS-l’s house on April 10, 2012, regarding the one-kilogram of cocaine transaction and directed the CHS-1 to not discuss the details of the transaction with C. Roybal over the telephone. See Response at 20. The United States maintains, however, that it has established at least one additional transaction involving a kilogram of Cocaine in which G. Roybal was involved. See Response at 20.

This relates to the April 10, 2012, delivery of one-kilogram of cocaine to John Doe 1. As noted above, agents intercepted a series of calls between John Doe 1 and Chris in which John Doe 1 is complaining about quality issues related to cocaine provided previously. John Doe 1 and Chris further discussed Chris delivering an additional kilogram of cocaine. Then, on April 10, 2012, John Doe 1 called Chris and tells Chris that “your uncle just called me and he’ll be at my pad in like a [UI] half an hour.” See Exhibit 15. Earlier in the evening, George texted Chris about having gotten a speeding ticket, claiming that Chris had unplugged George’s radar detector. See Exhibit 14. When George arrived at John Doe l’s house, John Doe 1 told Chris that they were “checking it out now” (referring to the kilogram of cocaine). Notably, Chris then had John Doe 1 give George a hard time about the speeding ticket, and you can hear George in the background of the call. This evidence, when couple with John Doe’s recitation of events, demonstrates that George is responsible for an additional kilogram of cocaine. This is sufficient to establish at least 2 kilograms as required for an offense level of 26.

In addition, the United States has also demonstrated that George was involved in the money laundering conspiracy related to the use of a courier, John Doe 3, to send drug proceeds to California on April 11, 2012. After John Doe 3’s arrival and a quick stop at TD’s North, John Doe 3, Chris, another co-defendant, and George all met at George’s house. It is at George’s house that George and Chris then retrieved the cash from one of the bedrooms.

George then accompanied Chris and John Doe 3 to the airport. In his objections, George felt the need to clarify that he did not, in fact, board the airplane. Everyone is in agreement on that point. The whole point of George going to the airport that day was to help John Doe 3 and Chris bring the $36,500 through security. Once on the other side of security, John Doe 3 collected the portion George carried. See Exhibit 23. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to include these proceeds in the calculations of the defendant’s drug quantity.

Response at 21. The United States counters G. Roybal’s concern over the reliability of the cooperators, maintaining that the Court need not rely solely on the information which they provided to find G. Roybal responsible for the drug proceeds sent by courier to California. See Response at 21. The United States asserts that there are intercepted wire communications and agent surveillance, which place G. Roybal with Cameron at the airport on April 12, 2012. See Response at 21. In sum, the United States argues that it has established that G. Roybal is responsible for at least two kilograms of cocaine or its equivalent, resulting in an offense level of 26 with respect to drug quantity. See Response at 22.

Last, the United States asks the Court to overrule G. Roybal’s fifth and final objection, in which he requests that the Court decrease his offense level an additional 4 levels for being a minimal participant pursuant to § 3B1.2(a). See Response at 22. The United States agrees with the USPO that G. Roybal’s level of criminal culpability is such that he is ineligible for any such role adjustment. See Response at 22. The United States explains:

As the application notes caution, for this adjustment to apply, the defendant must be one who is “plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” See USSG § 3B1.2, app. n. 4. And that “the defendant’s lack, of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as a minor participant.” Id. As discussed herein, George played an integral role in this conspiracy, from providing a safe location for various drug deals and drug-related activity to take place to being a point of contact if Chris was unavailable. ■ George is a far cry from those contemplated by the sentencing commission when crafting this mitigating role adjustment. As such, the Court should overrule this objection as well.

Response at 22-23. Without enhancements under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and § 2Di.l(b)(12), the United States therefore concludes that the adjusted offense level should be 28, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 78 to 97 months. See Response at 23.

4. The Reply.

G. Roybal replied to the Response on May 12, 2015.. See Sealed Reply to United States’ Sealed Response to Defendant Roybal’s Sentencing Memorandum, filed May 12, 2015 (Doc. 914)(“Réply”). G. Roy-bal first renews the arguments set forth in his Sentencing Memorandum and then provides an analysis of the twenty-six exhibits attached to the United States’ Response. See Reply at 1. G. Roybal contends that the majority of the exhibits 'attached to the Response make no reference to G. Roybal. See Reply at 1. G. Roybal urges the Court to accept the arguments from both parties that enhancements under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and § 2Dl.l(b)(17) should not be applied. See Reply at 1. G. Roybal also requests an evidentiary hearing in this matter. See Reply at 2.

G. Roybal provides an analysis of the twenty-six exhibits attach