*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40255

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

KENNETH COMEAUX,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CR-119-1)

June 19, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Comeaux appeals his sentence following his guilty

plea and conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to

distribute. We affirm.

Comeaux first argues that the court erred by increasing his

base offense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for

possession of a weapon during a drug-related offense. Comeaux’s
2

argument that he did not know of the weapon, however, is without

merit. “Neither the sentencing guidelines nor the case law

requires that the Government prove a defendant had knowledge of a

weapon’s existence”. United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 179

(5th Cir. 1996). “The adjustment must be made when a weapon is

found at the scene of the crime unless there is a clear

improbability that the weapon is connected to the offense”. Id. 

See also United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir.

1993)(the government may satisfy its burden of proving possession

of a weapon by showing that the weapon was found in the same

location as the drugs or drug paraphernalia are stored or where a

part of the transaction occurred.) Under the facts of this case,

we find no clear error in the court’s application of the

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).

Comeaux next asserts that the court’s calculation of the

quantity of cocaine base involved in the offense was clearly

erroneous. He maintains that the district court erred in

considering drugs seized in December 1993 to be part of the same

course of conduct as the cocaine base seized during his October

1995 arrest. He also argues that other amounts of drugs seized

were so small that they could have supported only a conclusion

that the drugs were for personal use and not distribution.

We review the district court’s drug quantity calculations

for clear error. Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 345. In determining the
3

amount of drugs attributable to a defendant, the sentencing court

is not limited to considering the amount of drugs seized or

charged in the indictment. United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d

454, 457-58 (5th Cir. 1992). Instead, § 1B1.3(a)(2) authorizes a

sentencing court to consider all acts an omissions that are part

of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the

offense of conviction. United States v. Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374,

1378 (5th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the presentencing

report adequately demonstrates that Comeaux engaged in drug

distribution from December 1993 to October 1995 with the

regularity required to find a course of conduct. The lack of

temporal proximity is not dispositive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt.

9(B)(1995). The district court did not clearly err in its drug

quantity calculations.

Finally, Comeaux asserts that the district court erred when

it failed to award him a three level decrease in his offense

level for acceptance of responsibility. He argues that his

timely guilty plea and his willingness to provide assistance to

the government require such a reduction.

The presentence report recommended denying a reduction,

stating that Comeaux had denied that the 22.39 grams of cocaine

(which he later pleaded guilty to possessing) were his. The

presentencing report also stated that Comeaux had violated his

conditions of pretrial release by testing positive for cocaine.
4

The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is

entitled to a downward adjustment. United States v. Kinder, 946

F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, a defendant is not

entitled to a reduction simply because he enters a guilty plea. 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 3 (1995); United States v. Shipley, 963

F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1992). Attempts to minimize participation

in an offense do not demonstrate sincere contrition regarding the

full extent of criminal conduct for acceptance of responsibility. 

United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1372 & n.39 (5th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED.