United States v. Jimenez-Marquez.
No. 24-2145. 4/3/2026. D.N.M. Judge Hartz. Possessing Firearms in Furtherance of a Drug-Trafficking Crime—18 USC § 924(c)—Vagueness As-Applied—Sufficiency of Evidence.
April 3, 2026
Albuquerque Police Department officers observed Jimenez-Marquez stepping out of the driver’s seat of a truck that had been reported stolen. Two passengers were in the vehicle, and one of them fled on foot. A search of the truck revealed a 445-gram vacuum-sealed bundle of methamphetamine under the driver’s seat and a stolen unloaded revolver. Officers also found an assault rifle with ammunition loaded into an attached magazine on the passenger seat (which Jimenez-Marquez later admitted he had moved from the back seat) and a Ziploc bag containing 84 grams of methamphetamine in the back-seat area. At trial, there was expert testimony that Jimenez-Marquez’s firearms functioned as designed, that the methamphetamine amount he possessed was consistent with distribution and worth up to $10,800, and that drug traffickers often have firearms for protection. The government also introduced text messages indicating that Jimenez-Marquez had been trying to get firearms after he had recently been the victim of a drug robbery. As relevant here, Jimenez-Marquez was convicted of violating 18 USC § 924(c) by possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
On appeal, Jimenez-Marquez contended that the evidence was insufficient to show possession in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime because the evidence showed only possession in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. He asserted that § 924(c) and Tenth Circuit caselaw interpreting it fail to adequately distinguish between “in furtherance of” and “in relation to”—which is a lower standard—thus rendering the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied. As relevant here, § 924(c)(1)(A) is violated by a person who “uses or carries a firearm” “during and in relation to” a drug-trafficking crime or by possessing a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug-trafficking crime. A person is thus guilty of a § 924(c) offense if they possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and a person possessing a firearm in furtherance of the crime always possesses it in relation to the crime; there is no safe harbor for possession that is “in relation to.” In United States v. Basham, 268 F.3d 1199, 1208 (10th Cir. 2001), the Tenth Circuit held that “in furtherance of” in § 924(c)(1)(A) means “for the purpose of assisting in, promoting, accomplishing, advancing, or achieving the goal or objective of the underlying offense.” To determine whether this test is met, seven Basham factors are analyzed: (1) the type of criminal activity conducted; (2) the firearm’s accessibility; (3) the type of firearm; (4) whether the firearm is stolen; (5) the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal); (6) whether the firearm is loaded; (7) the time and circumstances under which the firearm is found; and (8) proximity to drugs or drug profits. Jimenez-Marquez did not argue that these criteria are vague. Here, the Basham factors weigh against Jimenez-Marquez, given, for example, the proximity and status of the firearms and that evidence suggests that he had been in the middle of a drug deal when police arrived. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to convict, and the statute was not vague as applied to Jimenez-Marquez.
The conviction was affirmed.