UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10180
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUADALUPE CARBAJAL-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:99-CR-196-Y)
November 3, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guadalupe Carbajal-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed for his
guilty-plea conviction of possession for methamphetamine with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Carbajal contends that the district court erred in enhancing his
sentence, pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines,
for possession of a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
“The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless
it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the
offense.” Id., comment (n.3) (emphasis added). We review only for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
clear error. See e.g., United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119
(5th Cir. 1995).
Pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1), a defendant may be held accountable
for a codefendant’s reasonably foreseeable possession of a firearm
during the commission of a drug trafficking offense. E.g., United
States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1990).
The Government may prove such possession by showing that “a
temporal and spatial relationship existed between the weapon, the
drug trafficking activity, and the [co]defendant”. United States
v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510
U.S. 1198 (1994). This nexus may be proved by evidence that the
weapon was found in the same location where the drugs or drug
paraphernalia were stored or where part of the transaction
occurred. Id.
The weapons were found in at least two bedrooms of the
apartment of one of Carbajal’s codefendants. Carbajal left that
apartment shortly before he delivered the methamphetamine, with the
weapons being found later that day. In short, there is a spatial
and temporal connection between the weapons and the offense. See
id. Therefore, the district court’s finding of possession was not
clearly erroneous.
Carbajal contends he never stayed at his codefendant’s
apartment or spent any time in the rooms where the weapons were
found. However, as noted, regardless of Carbajal’s knowledge of
the presence of the firearms, he may be held responsible if he
could have reasonably foreseen his codefendant’s possession of
them. See Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d at 1215. Because firearms are
2
well-known “tools of the trade” of those engaged in illegal drug
trafficking, the district court did not clearly err in finding that
Carbajal could reasonably have foreseen his codefendant’s
possession of the weapons. See Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 350 (citing
Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d at 1215-16).
AFFIRMED
3