Prohibition on Dual Firearm Enhancements and Confirmation of Search Doctrine: United States v. Azari Gonzalez

Introduction

United States v. Azari Gonzalez is a 2025 decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals arising from the Southern District of Florida. Defendant‐appellant Azari Gonzalez was convicted of (1) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), (2) possession with intent to distribute a detectable amount of cocaine and cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). The district court sentenced him to 130 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.

On appeal, Gonzalez challenged multiple aspects of his convictions and sentence:

Evidentiary rulings relating to refusal to comply with a DNA warrant and warrantless search of his vehicle.
Supplemental jury instructions permitting an adverse inference from his DNA refusal.
Alleged cumulative trial errors.
Denial of motions for substitute counsel.
Sentencing enhancements for a “large capacity magazine” and for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony, plus the addition of standard supervised‐release conditions without oral pronouncement.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Gonzalez’s convictions but vacated and remanded his sentence for correction of sentencing‐guideline errors. Key holdings:

No Sixth Amendment violation in admitting evidence of Gonzalez’s refusal to provide a DNA sample or in instructing the jury on an adverse inference from that refusal.
Warrantless seizure of contraband in Gonzalez’s impounded vehicle was lawful under the inventory‐search and search‐incident‐to‐arrest exceptions.
Cumulative‐error claim fails where no reversible errors occurred.
No abuse of discretion in denying substitute‐counsel motions—the defendant showed neither conflict of interest nor communication breakdown.
Sentencing errors: the district court plainly erred in applying (a) a four-level enhancement for a “semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine” when the firearm did not qualify, (b) a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in furtherance of another felony (double‐counting the § 924(c) conduct), and (c) standard supervised‐release conditions without oral pronouncement or incorporation by reference.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) – Defined “critical stages” of prosecution requiring counsel; physical evidence collection (fingerprints, blood sample) not such a stage.
United States v. Hidalgo, 7 F.3d 1566 (11th Cir. 1993) – Held no right to counsel during requests for physical‐nature evidence or consent to search situations.
United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2000) – Standards for reviewing jury‐instruction errors and the plain‐error standard.
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) – Established inventory‐search exception to warrant requirement.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) – Clarified search‐incident‐to‐arrest exception for vehicles.
United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2K2.1, 2K2.4 – Definitions and enhancements for firearms offenses; commentary prohibiting duplicative enhancements when § 924(c) applies.
United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2003) – Barred double counting a § 924(c) firearm possession in the § 922(g) guidelines calculation.
United States v. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1231 (11th Cir. 2023) – Due process requires oral pronouncement or clear incorporation of discretionary supervised‐release conditions.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sixth Amendment and Jury Instructions: Because a DNA sample request is akin to fingerprint or blood sampling, it was not a “critical stage” requiring counsel under Wade and Hidalgo. The adverse‐inference instruction derived from the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern “flight” charge (Pattern Instruction S19) was proper and non‐prejudicial.

2. Warrantless Vehicle Search: Under Opperman and Gant, officers may impound a vehicle in good faith according to standardized criteria and conduct an inventory search of closed containers. Alternatively, a search incident to the lawful arrest of a recent occupant is permissible when probable cause exists that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity. The items found in Gonzalez’s car fell within these exceptions.

3. Cumulative Error: No single reversible error was identified—thus there was nothing to aggregate into a denial of fundamental fairness.

4. Substitute Counsel: Under Calderon and Garey, good cause for new counsel requires a conflict of interest or breakdown in communication. Gonzalez’s general dissatisfaction and strategic disagreements did not meet the standard.

5. Sentencing Enhancements:

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I) “large capacity magazine” enhancement applies only to semiautomatic firearms with an attached magazine of over 15 rounds or such a device in close proximity. The record did not support this.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm “in connection” with another felony cannot be applied when the defendant is also sentenced under § 924(c) for the same conduct (double counting). Brown prohibits enhancing the underlying § 922(g) offense with conduct fully penalized under § 924(c).
Due Process of Sentence Pronouncement: Under Rodriguez, discretionary supervised‐release conditions must be orally pronounced or clearly incorporated. The district court erred by listing them only in the written judgment.

Impact

United States v. Azari Gonzalez reinforces several critical points:

Defendants have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel when providing physical evidence samples or consenting to searches.
Inventory and search‐incident‐to‐arrest exceptions remain robust for impounded vehicles.
Courts must vigilantly avoid duplicative sentencing enhancements, especially when § 924(c) convictions are at issue.
Sentencing courts must orally pronounce all discretionary supervised‐release conditions or formally incorporate them at the hearing.
This decision will guide future appeals involving DNA orders, vehicle searches without warrants, jury instructions on adverse inferences, counsel substitution, and firearm‐related guideline calculations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain Error Review: When a defendant did not properly object in district court, appellate courts can correct only “plain” (clear and obvious) mistakes that affect substantial rights and undermine fair proceedings.
Inventory Search Exception: Police may tow (“impound”) a legally stopped vehicle and, following written department rules, search its contents without a warrant to catalog belongings and protect the vehicle.
Search Incident to Arrest: After arresting someone recently inside a vehicle, officers can search the passenger compartment for officer safety and evidence preservation, but only if there is reason to believe evidence related to the arrest offense is inside.
Double Counting in Sentencing: Enhancements must target distinct conduct. If a firearm‐possession crime under § 922(g) is enhanced by conduct already punished under § 924(c), the defendant is penalized twice for the same act—impermissible under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Oral Pronouncement of Conditions: For due process, the judge must tell the defendant, out loud at the hearing, what conditions of supervised release will apply, or explicitly reference a document listing those conditions.

Conclusion

United States v. Azari Gonzalez represents a comprehensive reaffirmation of established search‐and‐seizure doctrines and clarifies sentencing‐guideline applications for firearm offenses. The Eleventh Circuit’s careful analysis ensures that defendants are not deprived of counsel at non‐critical stages, that warrantless searches adhere to recognized exceptions, and that sentencing enhancements remain fair and non‐duplicative. By vacating and remanding Gonzalez’s sentence, the court highlights the importance of precise guideline calculations and proper procedural pronouncements—guidance that will shape future criminal prosecutions and appeals in this Circuit.