United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 13, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40116
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERALD THOMAS NOBLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:02-CR-38-1
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gerald Thomas Noble appeals his sentence following his guilty-
plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Noble argues that the district
court erred in increasing his base offense level by four levels
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).
Section 2K2.1(b)(5) provides for a four-level sentencing
*
Pursuan t 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
increase “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or
ammunition in connection with another felony offense . . . .” The
district court did not err in applying the four-point adjustment in
the instant case.
Noble possessed the firearms in question during his commission
of the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, and
could have used those firearms to facilitate his possession of that
controlled substance. See United States v. Armsted, 114 F.3d 504,
511 (5th Cir. 1997). Noble purchased the firearms from the same
person who supplied him with the controlled substance, and the
firearms were clearly readily available to him to protect his drug
possession. Indeed, by Noble’s own admission, he purchased at
least one of the firearms–a short-barreled shotgun–precisely
because it was easier to maneuver and to use in the cab of his
pickup truck, the very place where he possessed the controlled
substance. See id. at 512; see also United States v. Condren, 18
F.3d 1190, 1197 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that the danger of violence
is undeniably increased where a firearm is possessed simultaneously
with illegal drugs). The firearms Noble possessed were found in
close physical proximity to the drugs he then possessed and were
readily available to him to protect his drug possession. Nor is it
of any import that the quantity of drugs Noble possessed was
consistent with personal consumption. “[I]t would be more than
reasonable to infer that [Noble] possessed the firearm[s] in order
2
to protect even the small amount of drugs kept, or intended, for
his personal use.” Condren at 1199. The firearms were thus
possessed “in connection with” Noble’s offense of felony drug
possession within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). See
Condren at 1199-2000. Finally, Noble’s attempts to distinguish
Condren and Armsted are without merit, as is his argument that this
court should reject Condren in favor of the Ninth Circuit’s more
stringent approach in United States v. Routon, 25 F.3d 815 (9th
Cir. 1994). See Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir.
1997).
AFFIRMED.
3