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

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10653 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. JOSE O LI VA S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 7 - CR- 1 4 - ALL B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J o s e O liv a s p le a d e dg u iltyto b e in gafe lo n i n p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a r m in vi ol ati on of

18 U . S . C . § 922(g) ( 1) an d w as sentenced to 105 m on t h s of i m pr i s o nm e nta nd t w o y e ar s o f s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e . Ol iva s a r gue s t h att he di st r i c tc our terr ed i n appl yi ng a f our - l eve lu pw ar d adj ust m entf orpos se ss i ng a f i r e a r m i n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h a n o t h e rfe l o n yo f fe n s e p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 K 2. 1(b) ( 6) . H e c o nt e nds t hatb e c aus e t he r e i s no ev i den ce t hathe i s t he

“M exi can Joe” i den t i f i ed byt h e con f

i den t i ali n f

orm an t( C I) , t h ere i s no evi den ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 29, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10653

2 t hathe h ada c t ualkno w l e dg e t hatt he f i r e ar m s i n hi s po s s e s s i o n wer e s t o l e n. H e a l so ar gues t hatev en i f h e w as “M exi c an Joe , ” i tdoe s notf ol l ow t hathe had kno w l e dg e t hatt he f i r e ar m s w e r e s t o l e n. H e c o nt e nds t hatt he pr e s en t en ce r e po r t pr o vi de d no ba s i s f o rt he CI ’ s i nf

o r m at i o n t hatt he f

i r e ar m s w e r e s t o l e n. H e no t es t hatt he Texas thef tst at ut e, T exas P enalC ode § 31. 03, r equi r es ac t ual s u b j e c t i v e k n o w le d g e th a t t h e p r o p e r tyis s to le n . H e co n te n d s th a t t h e r e is ne ith e rdir e c tno rc i r c um s t ant i ale vi de nc e t hathe ha d a c t ualkno w l e dg e t hatt he f i rearm s w ere s t ol en . H e con t en ds t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g w as based on a q u e s tio n a b le ch a in o f in fe r e n c e s , n o t o n a n yfa c ts in th e re c o r d , a n ds o it is cl earl y erroneou s. Af t er B ooker , th is co u rt c o n tin u e s to re v iew ad istr ict court’ s in t erpret ati on an d ap pl i cat i on of

t h e gu i del i n es de no vo an d i t s f i n di n gs of

factf or c l ear err or. Uni t e dS t a t e s v . Vi l lega s , 4 04 F . 3d3 55 , 3 59 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5) . I n de t e r m i ni ng w het hera g ui del i ne e nhan c em entap p l i es , a di st r i c tc our ti s al l ow ed t o dr aw r e a s o na b l e i nf

e r e nc e s f

r o m t he fa c t s , a ndt he s e i nf e r e nc e s a r e fa c t - f

i nd i ngs r e v ie w e dfo rcle a re r r o r . Un itedS ta tes v. Ca ld w ell , 448 F . 3d 287 , 290 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). O l iva s i s c o r r e c tt hatt he l aw r e quir e s a c t uals u bj e c t iv ek n o wl e d g e t hatt he p r o p e r tyis s to le n fo raco n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 3 1 .0 3 (b )(2 ). S eeNa ra n jo v . S ta te , 217 S. W . 3d 560, 571 (Tex. C t . A pp. 2006) . H ow eve r , under Texas l aw , ev i denc e t hat th e d e fe n d a n t w a s i npo sse ssionof rece n tlys to le n p r o p e r ty , w ith o u t a re a s o n a b le e x p la n a tio n , g iv e s ris e to ap e r m is s ib le in fe r e n c e o f g u ilt. Ha rd es ty v . S ta te , 656 S .W .2d 7 3 , 7 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ). A lth o u g h it is n o t su ffi cie n t p ro o f of th e ft i n i t se l f, “ evi denc e of ‘ u n expl ai ned pos se ss i on o f r ec ent l y s t ol en pr ope r t y’m ay n o n e th e le s s b e acir c u m s ta n c e to b e co n s id e r e din as u ffic ie n c ya n a ly s is .” Na r a n jo , 2 1 7 S .W .3d a t 5 7 1 (cita tion om itted ). O l iva s d oe s n o t e x p l a i n w h y h e w a s i n po sse ssion of stolen f i rea rm s. It w a s r a t io n a l f

o rth e d i s t r ic tc o u r tto in fe rg u il t yk n o w le d g e fr o m O liv a s ’s u n e x p la in e d p o s s e s s io n o f th e s to le n fir e a r m s . W h ile s u c h a n in fe r e n c e in its e lfN o. 08- 10653

3 i s nots uf

f i c i entpr oo f f

or a t hef

tc onvi c t i on undert he be yond a r eas onabl e do ubt st an da rd, t h e st an da rd of proof at sentenci n gis a p repon deran ce of evi den ce. Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 17 F. 3d8 01 , 8 08 ( 5t h C i r . 2 00 8) . Bas e d o n t he perm i ssibl e i n ference draw n f rom O l ivas’ s u n exp l ai n ed p osses si on of st ol en f i r e ar m s , t o ge t he rw i t h t he c o r r o bo r at e d i nf o r m at i o n f

r o m t he CI , w e c o nc l ude t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng i s pl aus ibl e i n l i ghto f t he re c o r d as a w ho l e a nd is n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . S eeCa ld w ell , 448 F. 3d at292. AF F I RMED.