Octavio Jimenez-Marquez was arrested in February 2022 after Albuquerque Police Department officers observed him stepping out of the driver's seat of a stolen truck. Inside, officers found 445 grams of methamphetamine in a vacuum-sealed bundle beneath the driver's seat, an unloaded stolen revolver, and an assault rifle with ammunition in an attached magazine that Jimenez-Marquez admitted he had moved from the back seat. A separate bag containing 84 grams of methamphetamine was also recovered from the vehicle's back-seat area.
The court held there was sufficient evidence to convict Jimenez-Marquez under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. As Judge Hartz wrote, the term 'in furtherance of' means 'for the purpose of assisting in, promoting, accomplishing, advancing, or achieving the goal or objective of the underlying offense.' The court found that multiple factors supported the conviction, including the accessibility of the firearms from the driver's seat, evidence suggesting an ongoing drug transaction, and text messages showing Jimenez-Marquez had recently sought firearms after being robbed during a drug deal.
The court was unpersuaded by the defendant's argument that the evidence showed only possession 'in relation to' rather than 'in furtherance of' drug trafficking. As Judge Hartz observed, 'the occasions when possession is in furtherance of the crime are a subset of the occasions in which possession is in relation to the crime.' The court noted that even unloaded weapons could serve protective or intimidating purposes, writing that 'the government's expert explained at trial that a firearm need not be loaded to be useful for protection or intimidation.'
The case reached the Tenth Circuit after Jimenez-Marquez was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on multiple charges, including drug possession with intent to distribute, being an alien in possession of firearms, and escape. The district court proceedings were not detailed in the appellate opinion, but the case was tried before a jury that heard expert testimony about drug trafficking patterns and the value of the seized methamphetamine, estimated at up to $10,800.
Jimenez-Marquez argued that Section 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague because it was 'impossible to know when one's conduct is safely within the in relation to standard and not violating the slightly higher in furtherance of standard.' The court rejected this theory, finding the argument 'hard to parse.' Judge Hartz wrote that 'all you need to know to determine whether your possession of a firearm violates the in furtherance of language is what in furtherance of means,' dismissing the notion that defendants needed to understand both standards.
The ruling aligns with established Tenth Circuit precedent applying the eight-factor 'Basham test' to determine whether firearm possession furthers drug trafficking. The court cited similar cases where defendants possessed weapons alongside drugs in vehicles, noting that 'the evidence here is similar to, if not stronger than, the evidence in other cases where we have held that the in-furtherance-of element was satisfied.' The factors include proximity to drugs, accessibility of weapons, and whether firearms are stolen or loaded.
The decision reinforces the scope of federal firearms prosecutions following Congress's 1998 amendment to Section 924(c) that added possession charges after the Supreme Court's Bailey v. United States decision limited 'use' convictions. Judge Hartz explained that the amendment 'treated possession somewhat differently from using or carrying' by requiring the higher 'in furtherance of' standard rather than merely 'during and in relation to' the underlying crime.