Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 17, 2021
No. 20-10963 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Adrian Trayvon Spears,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-90-6
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Adrian Trayvon Spears pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by possessing firearms in furtherance of drug-
trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o). The district court sentenced
him to, inter alia, a within-Sentencing Guidelines term of 112-months’
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10963
imprisonment. Spears claims the court erred by: improperly applying an
enhancement under Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (use or possession of firearm
in connection with another felony offense); and failing to adequately explain
its application of that Guideline. Both claims fail. (In district court, Spears
also challenged the application of that Guideline and Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5)
(engaging in trafficking of firearms) because of “double counting”. This
claim is abandoned on appeal for failure to brief. See E. R. by E. R. v. Spring
Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F.3d 754, 763 (5th Cir. 2018).)
Because Spears did not raise either claim in district court, review is
only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th
Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear
or obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected
his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain
error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
As noted, Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies if defendant, inter alia,
“used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another
felony offense”. In determining whether to apply the enhancement to a drug-
trafficking offense, a court should consider whether a firearm “is found in
close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug
paraphernalia”. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. n.14(B). Spears admitted to
participating in a conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of drug-
trafficking crimes, including the facts in the presentence investigation report
(PSR). The PSR describes, inter alia, his possessing multiple bags of
marihuana and a firearm at the same time. (In passing, Spears claims these
amounts of marihuana could “arguably” be for personal use; we do not
review such issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins,
2
Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10963
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)). The court’s application of the
enhancement was not clear or obvious error.
Regarding the court’s explanation of Spears’ sentence, “[t]he
sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that
he has considered the parties’ [claims] and has a reasoned basis for exercising
his own legal decisionmaking authority”. United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d
728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The court adequately explained
its chosen sentence by adopting the PSR’s factual findings, considering the
Government’s claim that the plain language of Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
supported its application, overruling Spears’ objection, and imposing a
sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d
525, 529 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he adequacy of a district court’s articulation of
its reasons for imposing a sentence must be judged in light of the proceeding
as a whole, including the facts revealed in the PSR”.).
AFFIRMED.
3