United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10596
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-329-5
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Reyes appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for one
count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to
distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count
of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(viii).
Reyes argues that the district court committed clear error in
assigning a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
No. 05-10596
-2-
for possession of weapons in connection with a drug trafficking crime.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005).
The district court’s application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) increase
was not clearly erroneous. The record reflects that there was a
temporal and spatial relationship between the weapons recovered
from Reyes’s home, the drugs recovered from his attached garage,
and Reyes himself. See United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423,
431 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 230,
235 (5th Cir. 1999).
Reyes next argues that his sentence was unreasonable because
the district court failed to consider the factors outlined in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court
stated that it chose to sentence Reyes within the guidelines range
although it understood the guidelines to be advisory. The judgment
further reflects that the § 3553(a) factors were considered and
such an inference can be drawn by the district court’s sentence
within the applicable guidelines range. See United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir)., cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43
(2005). Accordingly, the district court’s sentence was reasonable.
See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Reyes argues that the district court’s sentence
violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments due to the court’s failure
to consider the guidelines advisory in practice. He also contends
No. 05-10596
-3-
that the court failed to afford him an opportunity to offer
evidence on the weapons increase before rendering its ruling on his
objection. Because Reyes raises these arguments for the first time
on appeal, they are reviewed for plain error only. See Mares, 402
F.3d at 520.
The inference exists from the court’s statements at sentencing
and the written judgment that the sentence, which was within the
guidelines range, was reasonable and that the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. The record
reflects that the district court considered Reyes’s objections to
the presentence report concerning the weapons increase at
sentencing. Reyes fails to identify what new evidence he intended
to introduce relative to the increase. Accordingly, he cannot
establish plain error. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520.
AFFIRMED.