Oscar Navarro-Zepeda was arrested after police discovered 33 pounds of methamphetamine, nearly $18,000 in cash, and an unloaded AR-style rifle in his apartment. He had previously sold drugs and a gun to a confidential informant. Facing trial, Navarro-Zepeda entered into a plea agreement with the government to plead guilty to one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The agreement included specific factual stipulations and a clause stating the government could use those stipulations against him if he violated the agreement. Navarro-Zepeda signed the agreement and later, during the change-of-plea hearing, contradicted the factual stipulations by claiming the rifle belonged to someone else and that he intended to discard the drugs. The district court rejected the plea due to the lack of a factual basis and subsequently allowed the government to introduce the stipulations as evidence at trial. A jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to 204 months in prison.
The Eighth Circuit addressed three main arguments. First, regarding the admissibility of plea negotiations, the court noted the general rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 that such statements are inadmissible. However, the court found that Navarro-Zepeda had knowingly and voluntarily waived this protection. The plea agreement explicitly stated that the government could use the stipulations against him if he refused to follow through. The district court found this waiver binding based on testimony from defense counsel that he had explained the consequences, and the appellate court deferred to that credibility finding. Second, on the sufficiency of the evidence, the court applied the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It found the nexus between the drugs and the rifle sufficient because of their close proximity and expert testimony that drug dealers commonly use such firearms for protection. Third, regarding the sentence, the court determined it was substantively reasonable. While the district court granted a downward variance based on the defendant's background, it correctly considered the statutory factors and the severity of the crime, including the large drug quantity and the firearm, without committing a clear error of judgment.
The decision reinforces the enforceability of waivers of Rule 410 protections in plea agreements when entered into knowingly and voluntarily. It clarifies that defendants who breach plea deals by contradicting factual stipulations may face those admissions at trial. The ruling also confirms that close proximity between drugs and firearms, supported by expert testimony, is sufficient to establish the 'in furtherance' element of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The case is remanded to the district court for enforcement of the 204-month sentence.