USA v. Allen Hughes, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-11268 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 09/04/2015 for Appellant Allen Gordon Hughes Jr. [14-11268]

Case: 14-11268

Document: 00513155040

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/14/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-11268
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 14, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
ALLEN GORDON HUGHES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-48-1
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Allen Gordon Hughes, Jr., appeals his sentence for possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred
in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement based on his possession of
a firearm in connection with the drug trafficking offense. We affirm.
Hughes argues that the enhancement was erroneous because the loaded
firearm, found inside his luggage on the vehicle’s back seat, was not in the

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 14-11268

Document: 00513155040

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/14/2015

No. 14-11268
same location as the methamphetamine, which was stowed in the spare tire
well of the trunk. Hughes, however, failed to raise this argument in the district
court; therefore, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Krout, 66
F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). To show plain error, Hughes must show that
the error was clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
For the enhancement to apply, the Government must establish a
temporal and spatial relation between the weapon, the drug trafficking, and
the defendant and may do so by showing that the weapon was found in the
same location where the drugs were stored or where part of the transaction
occurred. United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 53 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 1865 (2015). Hughes has failed to show plain or obvious error
because the undisputed facts support the inference that he possessed the
firearm in connection with the methamphetamine delivery insofar as the
firearm and methamphetamine were found in the vehicle, where part of the
drug transaction occurred. See United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 399-400
(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 247, 261 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

2