Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 40990

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. VA N T RI EU NGUY EN; L I NH KYDUO NG D efen d a n ts- A p p ell a n ts

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 4 :07 -C R -2 -8

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d W IE N E R an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. E D ITH H

. JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: * Li nh Ky D uo n g an d V an Tr i e u N guy e n a ppe alt he i rc o nvic t i o ns a nd
s e n te n c e s fo rc o n s p ir a c ya n dp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te 3 ,4 M et h yl en edi oxy-m et h am ph et am i n e (“M D M A” or “ ecst asy”) an d co c aine . Fo rthe
r e a s o n s s t a t e db e l o w, we AF FI RM

. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Ma rch 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 40990

2 I . B A CK GRO UND I n 2 00 6, unde r c o ve rl aw e nf o r c e m e ntof

f i c e r s i nve s t i ga t e d a n M D M A r i ng o pe r at i ng arou n d Dal l as , Te xa s . Duongs upp l i e d t o a n und e r c o ve ra ge nta nd confi den t i alsource 1, 002 , 998 , an d 5 22 ecst asy tabl et s on separate oc casi on s. Bas e d o n t he s e t r ans ac t i o ns , D EAa ge nt s o bt ai ne d aTi t l e I I I o r de ra l l o w i ng th em to m on i to rD u on g’ s p h on e for thirty d a ys . D u ri n g th a t t i m e, th e a ge n ts
ove r hear d c al l s i ndi c at i ng t o them t hatD uongw as go i ng t o pur c hase15, 000 t ablet s. Th e agen t s t h en w i t n essed a t ran sact i on i n D al l as w h ere th ey bel i eved t he t abl et s w er e de l iver ed. Agent s i nt er c ept ed ano t herc al li n di c at i ng t hat D uo ng w o ul d be pur c has i ng 5, 00 0 t o 10 , 00 0 t ab l e t s . They o bs e rve d a m eet i ng i n A rli n gton w h ere D u on g ret u rnedt o h i s car w i t h a box. T h e sup pl i er andcod efen d a n t, T h o T i eu , la te rtes tifi edtha t sh e h a dde l ive redecsta sytab l ets to D u on g o n t hato c c as i o n. Duongw as s e e n de l ive r i ng t ab l e t s t o a no t he rcodefenda n tt h e ne x t d a yw h o w as short ly t h ereaf t er arr est ed i n possess i on of 1, 000 t ablet s. F ol l ow i n g t h e ret u rn of t h e ori gi n ali n di ct m en tagainstD u on g an d others, of f i cers servedan arres tw arran tf or Th o T i eu at h er r esi den ce at711 W e st M i l t on, A r l i ngt on, Texas

. D uri ng a pr ot ec t ive sw ee p of t he house , N guyen w as f ou n d i n t h e m asterbedroom

. H e w as broug h tt o a f ront r oom . N evert h el ess,
w hil e t he o f

f i c e r s w e r e s e ar c hi ng t he ho us e , N guy e n was a ga i n f o und i n t he
ma s t e rb e d r o o m n e x tt o a b a b yc r ib t h a th a da b a b yc a r r i e ri n it
. T w o f i r e a r ms
w ere f ou n du n d er th e li n i n g o f th e b a b y ca rrier. V a ri ou s d ru g p a ra p h e r n a lia
w ere al so f

ou n d i n t h e m asterbathr o o m . D ocum en t s beari n g N gu yen ’ s nam e, i n cl u di n g a plane ticket to O t t aw a an d C an ad i an i m m i grati on pap erw ork, w ere f o und i n as ui t c as e i n t he m as t e r be dr o o m c l o s e t
. I n t he g ar ag e , o f f i c e r s f o und 26 k i l ogram s of

coc ai n e an d m ore docum en t s w i t h N gu yen ’ s nam e i n a L exu s. N guy e n ’ s f

i n ger pr i ntw as l at e ri de nt if i e d o n t he t ap e w r ap pi ng o ne o f t he pa ckag es of

coc ai n e.N o. 07- 40990

3 Asup ersedi n g i n di ct m en tan d arrest w arran ti ssuedt o i n cl u de N gu yen andt he c o c ai ne . The se c o nd s e ar c h o f t he 7 11 W e s tM i l t o n r e s i de nc e t ur ne d up 732 ecs t a sy ta b let s. D rug p arap h erna l i a w ere agai n f ou n d i n t h e m aster ba t hr o o m . A D EAc he m i s tc o nf i r m e d the pr e s e nc e o f c o c ai ne i n t he w as he ra nd dr ye ra r e a, on a s he l f i n t he m as t e rbe dr o o m cl o s e t , on t he par ap he r nali a i n t he ba t hr o o m , a nd i n t w o ve hi c l e s i n t he gar ag e . A l ar geam o untof c as h was f

o und i n a closet. Aj u ry convi ct ed D u on g an d N gu yen of conspi racy t o di s tribut ea nd p o s sess
w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te M D M Aa n d c o c a in e . T h e ju r yfo u n dD u o n gre s p o n s ib le f or 23, 522 t ablet s andN gu yen res pon sibl e f or 732 tabl et s andat l east f ive kil os of coc ai n e. D u on g w as sentenced to 170 m on t h s an d N gu yen t o 188 m on t h s of i n carcer ati on . T h ey ap pea lt h ei r c on vi ct i on s andsentences. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A

. D u on g an d N gu yen firstcon t en d t h at there i s i n suff i ci en tevi den ce t o sust ai n t h ei r c on vi ct i on s. W e w i l lnot di st u rb a j u ry’ s verdi ctif “t h e evi den ce,
w h e n re v ie w e dinth e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t w ith a ll re a s o n a b le i n ferences and c re d ibil i t y choi ces m ad e i n sup port of a convi ct i on , al l ow s a
r a tio n a l fa c t fin d e rto fin de v e r ye le m e n t o f th e o ffe n s e b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d ou b t. ” Uni t e d St at e sv . Red d , 355 F. 3d 866, 872 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S ta tes v. Ha rr is , 2 9 3 F .3d8 6 3 , 8 6 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). D uo ng ar gue s t hatt he r e is ins uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o e s t ab l i s h t hathe pa rt i ci pa t ed i n t ran sact i on s i n volvi n g 23, 522 t ablet s. Th e G overnm en treli ed on t w o w i r e i nt e r c e pt s be t w e e n D uo ng anda co - de fe nda ntas e vi de nc e t hatD uo ng pi c ke d up 1 5, 00 0 t ab l e t s i n o ne t r ans ac t i o n. The t ab l e t s w e r e no ts e i z e d. I n t he f i r s ti nt e r c e pt , D uo ng i s t o l d t o “ ge t15 f r o m N am ’ s s i de

. . . t hr e e dif fe r e ntki nds

. . . f ive, f ive” an d l ater“it ’ s f

ive, f ive, f ive, f ive. ” Th e ext ra “f

ive” w as described
as a m i sno m er. F or a se par at e t r ansac t i on, t he G ove r nm entes t i m at ed that D uo ng t r ad e d 5 , 00 0 t o 1 0, 00 0 t ab l e t s b as e d o n a n i nt e r c ept i n w hi c h DuongN o. 07- 40990

4 as ked w het hert he num berof tab l et s i s “f

ive orte n” an d T i eu res ponded, “Th at
m uc h o rl e s s . ” The s e t ab l e t s w e r e a l s o no ts e i z e d. T h e j u ry hea rd extensive t est i m on y f rom D E ASp eci alA gen tK ei t h O l son
w h o b eli ev edtha t th e interc ep tedcon ve rsa ti on s w ere referringto 15 , 0 0 0 tab l ets f ort he f i r sttr ansac t i on an d 5, 000 t o 1 0, 000 f ort he s ec ond t r ansac t i on. Al t hough
no tq ualif

i e d a s a n e xp e r t , Spe c i alAge ntO l s o n’ s e xt e ns ivepa r t i c i pa t i o n i n t he in v e s tig a tio n “a llo w e dh im to fo r m o p in io n s co n c e r n in g th e m e a n in go f c e r ta in cod e w ord s u sedi n this dru g rin g b a sedon h i s p erso n a lpe rcep tio n s .” Un i t ed St at e sv . Mi randa , 2 4 8 F .3d4 3 4 , 4 4 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). D u on g of

fers al t erna t ive pl au sibl e exp l an ati on s f or t h e in te rcept ed conversati on s, w h i ch could hav e l ed a reason able j u ry t o bel i eve t h at l ess ecst asy
w a s in v o lv e dinth e s e tr a n s a c t io n s . R e g a r d le s s , t h is c o u r tr e v ie w s th e ju r y ’s
ve rd i ct on ly to d eterm i n e w h eth er itw a s rea son a b l e, n ot w h eth er itw a s corre ct. Un i t e dS t a t e sv . Wi l l i a ms , 264 F. 3d 561, 576 ( 5t h C i r . 2001)

. Based on Spec i al A ge n t O l son ’ s testi m on y, th e interc ep ts, an d the ev i d en ce of 3,52 2 tab l ets
exc hanged i n ot herdeal s, a re as onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd t hatD uong w as responsibl e f

or 23, 522 ecs t asy tabl et s. N guyen c ont ends t hatt he e vi denc e pr es ent ed byt he G ove r nm entw as i nsuf f i c i entt o a l l ow a r eas onabl e j ury t o f i nd t hath e w as par tof t he c ons pi r ac y. To c onvi c tN guyen, t he G ove r nm ent had t o pro ve t hat a c ons pi r ac y e xi st ed, t hat N gu ye n k n ew ab ou t it, an dtha t h e jo in e d a n dvo l u n tarily p a rti ci p a tedi n it. Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 86 F. 3d 394, 398 ( 5t h C i r . 1996)

. Ci r c um stan t i al evi denc e o f

t hes e e l em ent s suf

f i c es . N gu ye n co n c ede s t hathe w as s t ayi ng at Ti e u’ s ho us e b uta r gue s t hathe w as no ti nvo lve d i n t he c o ns pir ac y andt hat“t he go ve r nm e ntm ayno tpr o veac o ns pir ac y m e r e ly by pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e pl ac i ng th e d efen d a n t i n a cli m a te of activity th a t reek s of som eth i n g fou l

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Malt os , 9 8 5 F .2d 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion om itted ).N o. 07- 40990

5 N guy e n ha d be e n st ay i ng att he 7 11 W e s tM i l t o n r e s i de nc e i n Ar l i ngt o n, T ex a s, f or a t l ea s t a w e e k b e fore the f i rst sea rch of th e h om e a n dcon ti n u edto
r e s i de t he re unt i lt he s e c o nd s e ar c h o c c ur r e d. Dur i ng bo t h s e ar c he s , dr ug pa r ap he r nali a w e r e f o und i n t h e m as t e rb e dr o o m a nd b athr o o m t hathe occupied. N gu yen ’ s c on f i rm ed f i n gerpri n tw as foun d on the t ap e t h at w rapp ed
on e of 2 6 kil ogram s of

cocai n e foun d i n the L exu s that h e a n d T i eu both drove. T i eu t est if

iedt h at N am N go, an ot h er c o- defenda n t , i n t rodu ced her to N gu yen an d that sh e ov erhea rd N gu yen an d N am N go di scussi n g t h e t radi n g of pow der
c o c a i n e f

o rMD MAt a b l e t s i n C a n a d a . S h e a l s o t e s t if i e dt h a tt h e 2 6 k i l o g r a ms of co ca i n e fou n dinth e b a cko f th e v eh i cl e in th e g a ra ge m i gh t ha ve be l on ge dto both N am N go an d N gu yen . A l t h ou gh m ere presence an d associ ati on w i t h coc o n s p ir a to r s a r e in s u ffic ie n t t o s u p p o r t aco n v ic tio n fo rco n s p ir a c y , see Un i t ed S ta tes v. Sa ce rio , 952 F. 2d 860, 865 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) , t her e i s c er t ai nl y m or e than
m e r e pr e s e nc e i n t hi s c as e . Are as o nab l e j ur y c o ul d r e ly o n Ti e u’ s t e s t i m o ny and t he s i gnif

i c antcir c um s t ant i alev i de nc e t o f i nd thatN guy e n was am e m be ro f t he
c ons pi r ac y. B. N guy e n ne xta r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d when i ta l l o w e d the G o ve r nm e ntt o i nt r o duc e ev i de nc e of N guy e n’ s t r i p t o C ana da , t e s t i m o ny o n t he practice of

drugt raf

f i cki n g betw een t h e U n i t ed S t ates an d C an ad a, an d evi dence fro m the search of

t h e res i den ce at711 W estM i l t on . E vi den t i ary rul i n gs are gen eral ly revi ew ed f or abu se of

d iscreti on an d are subj ectt o ha rm l ess error
r e v ie w w h e n p r o p e r ly o bje c te d to in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Un i t e dS t a t e sv . Wi l l i a ms , 9 5 7 F .2 d1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 0 -4 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). If e r r o ris n o t p r o p e r lyp r e s e rv e d , th is
c o u r t r e v ie w s s u c h ru lin g s o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jim enez , 256 F .3d3 3 0 , 3 4 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Th e G ove r nm e ntintr oduc ed a C anadi an f l i ghtit i ner ar y i n N guyen’ s nam e an d i m m i grati on pap erw ork f or C an ad i an tr a v e lbeari n g N gu yen ’ s nam e. N g u y e n o bje c te dto b o th e x h ib its

. H e a r g u e s th a t t h e e v id e n c e w a s u n fa ir lyN o. 07- 40990

6 prej u di ci alan d that th e di st ri ctcourterr ed u n der F ED
. R. E VID . 4 0 3 b e c a u s e it
a llo w e d“c o n c e d e d lyre le v a n t e v id e n c e to lu r e th e fa c tfin d e rin to d e c la r in gg u ilt
on a g rou n ddif

feren t f rom pr oo f s p e c ific to the off en se ch a rg ed

. ” O ld Chi ef v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 1 9 U .S . 1 7 2 , 1 8 0 (1 9 9 7 ). P r o o f o f tr a v e l to C a n a d a , h o w e v e r , is
n ot p reju d i ci a lon its ow n . E vid en ce of this trip w o u l dn ot l u re th e j u ryi n to fin d in gN g u y e n g u iltyo u t o f ap r eju d ic e a g a in s t t h o s e w h o tr a v e l to C a n a d a . If t h e evi den ce i s prej u di ci al , iti s prej u di ci al

— as i n m ostdam aging— becau se of i t s r el evan ce t o t h e case. The G o ve r nm e nta l s o s o l i c i t e d t e s t i m o ny f r o m Spe c i alAge ntO l s o n a bo ut t h e rec en tpatt ern i n t raf f i cki n g of

t radi n g pow der coc ai n e f rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates f or ecst asy pi l l s i n C an ad a. N gu yen di d n otobj ectt o t h e i n t rodu ct i on of t hi s t e s t i m o ny att r i al , r e quir i ng o urr e vi e w o f t he a dm i s s i on of

t he t e s t i m o ny fo rp la ine r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jim enez , 2 5 6 F .3d3 3 0 , 3 4 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Thi s c o ur thas hel d t hat“ an e xp e r i e nc e d na r c o t i c s a ge ntm ayt e s t if y ab o utt he
s i gnif i c anc e o f

c e r t ai n c o nduc to rm e t ho ds of oper at i o n uni quet o t he dr ug d is tribu ti on bu sine ss. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ash i ngt on , 44 F. 3d 1271, 1283 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 5)

. W hil e a t i m e ly o bj e c t i o n t o t hi s t e s t i m o ny m i ght hav e r e s ul t e d i n t he excl u si on of

som e of

A gen tO l son’ s t est i m on y, w e cann otsay th at pl ai n err or occurred. In an y even t , su ch errorw ou l d be h arm l ess i n li gh tof the tot al i t y of
e vi de nc e a ga i ns tN guy e n. N gu ye n also cl a i m s th a t th e d i stric t c o u rt erron eo u sly ad m i tted in to evi den ce t w o f

i rearm s an d dru g pa raph erna l i a confi scat ed d u ri n g t h e searc h of th e 7 1 1 W e s t M ilto n r e s id e n c e . H e a r g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s h i g h ly prej u dicialan d n otprobative becau se itconst i t u t ed i n ad m i ssibl e evi den ce of
e x tr a n e o u s m is c o n d u c t. If th is w e r e e v id e n c e o f e x tr in s icm is c o n d u c t, it w o u ld h a v e to b e re le v a n t t o a n is s u e o th e rth a n th e d e fe n d a n t’s ch a r a c te ra n dw o u ld h ave t o p osses s probative value t h at i s not ou t w ei gh ed byit s possibl e prej u di ce.N o. 07- 40990

7 S ee Un itedS ta tes v . B en tley -S m ith , 2 F .3d1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 7 & n .11 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). N gu ye n ’ s p rem i se is, h ow ev er, i n corre ct. F i rearm s are consi dered “t ool s of th e tr a d e” i n drugt raf f i cki n g of

fen ses a n da r e re le v a n t in tr in s icp r o o f o f a n o n g o in gco n s p ir a c y . S ee Uni t e d St at e sv. G arza , 11 8 F

. 3 d27 8 , 28 5 ( 5 thC i r. 19 9 7 ). T h i s cou rt recen tly re i tera tedth is
c o nc l us i o n i n a dr ug t r af f i c ki ng c as e w he r e t he am o unt ands t r e e tv alue o f t he d r u g s m a d e th e p o s s e s s io n o f fir e a r m s fo r e s e e a b le

. S ee Uni t e d S t at e sv. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 766 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)

. In thi s c as e, N guyen w as st an di n g n ear t h e bab y crib w h ere th e gu n s w ere s ecret ed, an d T i eu t est if i ed t h at N gu yen t ol d h er th at a f ri en d h adgiven hi m t h e gu n s. T h i s court h as al so h el d th at “ [ e] vi den ce of [t h e defen da n t ’ s] persona luse of coca i n e . . . w a s n ot ex tri n sic ev i d en ce; i t w a s ‘i n ex tri ca b ly in tertw i n edw i th t h e evi den ce u sed t o prove t h e cr i m e charged , [ an d] i s adm i ssibl e so t h at th e j u ry
m a y e va l u at e a llof

the circu m stan ces u n d er w h i chthe de fen d a n t acted

. ’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Maceo , 947 F. 2d 1191, 1199 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng Uni t ed S t at e sv. R a n d a ll , 8 87 F. 2d1 26 2, 1 26 8 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 9) )

. Thus , bo t h t he f i r e ar m s a nd d r ug par apher nali a ar e a dm i ss ibl e, int rinsicevi den ce su p p ortingN gu ye n’ s know l edge of and par t i c i pat i on i n t he c ons pi r ac y. C. D uo ng c o nt e nds t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o e s t ab l i s h t hatv e nue
w as prope r in th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas. Th i s c ou rtrevi ew s a f i n di n g of p r o p e r v e n u e fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t e dS t a t e sv . L i p s c o mb , 299 F. 3d 303, 3 3 8 ( 5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). D u o n gco n c e d e s th a t ad r u gtr a n s a c tio n o c c u r r e din Lewi s vil l e , Te xa s , w hi c h i s l o c at e d i n t he E as t e r n D i s t r i c tof Te xa s . Ven ue i n a c r i m i nalc ons pi ra cyca sei s “ pro peri n any di st r i c tw her e the agr ee m entw as form ed or a n o ve r ta c to c c ur r e d .

. . e ve n wher e itpe r m i t s t r i ala ga i n st d efen d a n ts i n a d i stri ct th eyn ev er ev en s et foo t in p ri or to trial. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v . Ca ld w ell , 1 6 F .3 d6 2 3 , 6 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (in te r n a l cit a tio n s o m itt e d). T h is contenti on i s m erit l ess.N o. 07- 40990

8 D

. F i n al ly, N gu yen an d D u on g ap pea lt h ei r s en t en ce s. Th i s c ou rt
r evi ew s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs per t ai ni ng t o as ent enc e f orc l ear e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cooper , 2 7 4 F .3d2 3 0 , 2 4 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). D u on g argu es th at th e di st ri ctcourtusedan i n f l ated average w e igh tof M D M A t ab l e t s t o de t e r m i ne hi s s e nt e nc e und e rt he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s . The G ui deli nes s ett he t ypi c alw ei ghtof an M D M Atab l etat250m g. U

. S. S. G

. § 2 D 1. 1, n. 11
. I n t hi s c as e , t he G o ver nm e ntw e i ghe d 3 , 55 3 o f t he 23, 522 t ablet s andf

ou n d the averag e w ei gh tt o be 263 m g. Th e d istri ctcourt
u sed t h i s average i n st eadof t h e t yp i calw ei gh tf

or s en t en ci n g pu rposes. D u on g u rges th at w ei gh i n g on ly f if t een percent of

t h e t ablets d o e s n ot yi el d suff

i ci en t ly reli able evi den ce t o sup port t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g u n der U

. S. S. G

. § 2 D 1. 1, n. 11
. The N o t e , ho w e ve r , r e quir e s aco ur tt o de vi at e f r o m t he ta b le o f ty p ic a l w e ig h ts if it fin d s m o r e re lia b le e v id e n c e . I d. (“D o n o t u s e th is t able if an y m ore r el i able est i m ate of t h e t ot alw eigh t is a v a i l able f rom casespecif i c i n for m a ti on . ” ) D u on g al so c i t es Un i t e dS t a t e sv . S i ms , 975 F. 2d 1225, 124 3 ( 6th C i r. 199 2) f or t h e proposi t i on t h at th e courtshou l d err on t h e si de of
c a u tio n w h e n e s tim a tin gth e q u a n tit yo f d r u g s . S i mshol ds t hat“w he n c ho o s i ng betw een a n u m ber of plausibl e esti m ates of drugqu an t i t y, non e of w h i ch i s m ore l i k ely th a n n ot th e correct q u a n tity, a cou rt m u st err on th e side of ca u ti on . ” I d. S i msw o u ldn o t a p p lyw h e r e , a s h e r e , th e r e a r e n o tt w o e q u a b lyp la u s ib le
e s tim a te s , b u t on e e s tim a te b a s e d o n c a s e -s p e c ificw e ig h ts a n dth e o th e rm e r e ly
ah yp oth eti ca ltyp i ca lw eigh t pro vid edb y th e G u i d eli n es. F i n a l ly, w e reitera te t h at a “ di st ri ctcourtm ay con si der est i m a te s o f t h e qu an t i t y of

drug s f

or s e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s . . . [ and] m aye xt r ap o l ate the qua nt i t y f r o m ‘ any in fo r m a tio n th a t h a s s u ffic ie n t in d ic iao f r e lia b ilityto s u p p o r t it s p r o b a b le accuracy, i n cl u di n g a proba t i on of f i cer’ s t est i m on y, a pol i cem an ’ s app roxi m ati on of un reco ve reddr u gs , an dev en h ea rsa y.’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. V aldez , 453 F. 3d 252, 2 6 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (quo t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lf ord , 1 42 F

. 3d825 , 832 ( 5th C i r.N o. 07- 40990

9 19 98 ) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns o m i t t e d) )

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no te r ri n c al c ul at i ng D u on g’ s s en t en ce. N g u ye n con tests th e t w o-l ev el sen ten ce en h a n cem en t a p p l i ed for h is p o s s e s s io n o f a d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n u n d e r U .S .S .G § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 ). T o a p p lyth is
en h an cem en t , t h e di st ri ctcourtm u stf i n d bya p re p o n deran ce of t h e evi den ce t hat“t he def

e nda ntper s o nally po s s e s s e d the w e ap o n” a nd that“ a t e m po r ala nd
s pa t i alr e l at i o n e xi s t e d b e t w e e n t he w e ap o n, t he dr ug t r af f i c ki ng ac t ivit y, a nd th e d efen d a n t. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hoot en , 942 F

. 2d878 , 882 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 1)

. The d is p o s i t iv e fa c to ris “a c c e s s ib ilityo f th ew e a p o n to th e d e fe n d a n t” u n le s s “itis cl ea rl y im p rob a b l e th a t th e w ea p on w a s con n ectedto th e offen se.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 6 2 F .3 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 4 -2 5 (5 t h C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). T ie u ’s t e s t im o n y , N g u y e n ’s p rese n ce ne xt to the crib w h en the po l i ce fou n dh i m , an dthe f i rea rm s’pr ox i m i ty t o t h e drugparap h erna l i a al l ow e d th e c o u rtt o i n fer th at th e gu n s w ere conn e c t e d t o N guy e n’ s dr ug t r af f i c ki ng. Atam i ni m um , t he f i ndi ng w as not cl early erroneou s. I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fort he f

oregoi n g r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nt s a nd s e nt e nc e s i m po s e d b y t he di st ri ctcourtare AF FI RM ED

.