United States v. Martin ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40431
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAY MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CR-155-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
January 23, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Martin pleaded guilty to being an unlawful user of a
controlled substance in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He now appeals his sentence. He argues
that the district court erred in not sustaining his objection to
a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) for
his possession of seven firearms in connection with the offense.
He contends that there was insufficient evidence to connect him
to the four firearms found in his truck. However, Martin was the
registered owner of the truck and he was a passenger in the truck
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-40431
-2-
when it was stopped for a traffic violation, at which point the
firearms were found in the truck with Martin, along with drug
paraphernalia including eleven syringes. A subsequent search of
Martin’s person revealed a small amount of methamphetamine in the
front pocket of his overalls. Thus, the district court’s finding
that Martin possessed the firearms, within the meaning of
§ 2K2.1(b)(1), while an unlawful user of a narcotic, was not
clear error. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th
Cir.)(no clear error where the district court’s factual finding
is plausible in light of the record read as a whole), cert.
denied, 523 U.S. 1142 (1998).
Martin’s argument regarding the district court’s denial of a
three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, relates to his conviction for theft of
Government property and is addressed in that appeal.
AFFIRMED.