[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11706

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20626-JEM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JARVIS WILLIAMS, 

a.k.a. Fat Twin,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 6, 2017)

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 1 of 6 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jarvis Williams appeals his concurrent 63-month sentences, imposed after he 

pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He contends that his sentences are 

procedurally unreasonable. He argues that the district court clearly erred by basing 

his sentences on quantities of controlled substances that his co-conspirators sold 

while he was in custody. He also argues that the district court clearly erred by 

applying a two-level firearm enhancement.

I.

When reviewing a sentence, we ensure that the district court did not commit 

a significant procedural error such as improperly calculating the guideline range or 

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “We review for clear error a district court’s determination of 

the drug quantity attributable to a defendant.” United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 

1018, 1046 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2012 (2016). A finding is 

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 2 of 6 
3

clearly erroneous if we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

has been committed.” United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1317 (11th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 518 (2015).

Arguments raised for the first time on appeal, if they are reviewed at all, are 

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206, 1217 (11th 

Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, a defendant must show that an error exists that 

is plain and affects his substantial rights. United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368, 

1384 (11th Cir. 2016). If these requirements are satisfied, we may exercise our

discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 1384-85. An error is plain if it 

is clear or obvious. United States v. DiFalco, 837 F.3d 1207, 1221 (11th Cir. 

2016).

Absent specific circumstances, a calculation of the guideline range for an 

offense of trafficking in controlled substances begins with a determination of the 

quantity of controlled substances involved. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a), (c); see also 

id. § 2D1.1, comment. (n. 7) (stating that quantities are added together where there 

are multiple transactions or drug types). 

The guideline range in a case involving jointly undertaken criminal activity 

is based on both the defendant’s own acts and acts of others that occurred during 

the commission of the offense and were “(i) within the scope of the jointly 

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 3 of 6 
4

undertaken criminal activity, (ii) in furtherance of that criminal activity, and (iii) 

reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.3(a)(1). Defining the scope of the criminal activity for a particular 

defendant involves determining “the scope of the specific conduct and objectives 

embraced by the defendant’s agreement” to participate in the activity. Id. § 1B1.3, 

comment. (n. 3(B)). When the scope of a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy 

is established, a court then determines the quantities of controlled substances 

reasonably foreseeable in connection with that level of participation. United States 

v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709, 714 (11th Cir. 1995).

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we see no 

reversible error.

The district court did not clearly err by basing Williams’s sentences on 

quantities of controlled substances that his co-conspirators sold while he was in 

custody: the sales were within the scope of his agreement to participate in the 

conspiracy, furthered the conspiracy, and were reasonably foreseeable in 

connection with the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Williams 

participated in sales of controlled substances both before and after he was in 

custody. The record does not reflect that he withdrew from the conspiracy while 

he was in custody (for approximately two months), and he resumed his 

participation in the conspiracy shortly after being released from custody. That his 

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 4 of 6 
5

co-conspirators would continue to sell controlled substances while he was absent

was reasonably foreseeable. 

Williams argues to us that his co-conspirators expanded the scope of the 

conspiracy by selling larger quantities of controlled substances while he was in 

custody, but he did not raise this argument to the district court. The district court 

did not plainly err by basing Williams’s sentences on the larger quantities because 

it is not clear or obvious from the record that Williams had agreed to participate in 

sales of only limited quantities of controlled substances.

II.

A factual finding made for sentencing purposes on possession of a firearm is 

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 

2006). The base offense level for an offense of trafficking in controlled substances

is increased by two levels if “a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was 

possessed.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The enhancement is “applied whenever a 

firearm is possessed during conduct relevant to the offense of conviction.” United 

States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2006).

A co-conspirator’s possession of a firearm may be attributed to a defendant 

for the purpose of applying the enhancement if the firearm possession “was 

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 5 of 6 
6

reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, occurred while he was a member of the 

conspiracy, and was in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Villarreal, 

613 F.3d 1344, 1359 (11th Cir. 2010). “There is a frequent and overpowering 

connection between the use of firearms and narcotics traffic,” and thus it may be 

“reasonably foreseeable that a co-conspirator would possess a firearm where the 

conspiracy involved trafficking in lucrative and illegal drugs.” Pham, 463 F.3d at 

1246. 

The district court did not clearly err by applying the two-level firearm 

enhancement. Williams argues to us that it was not reasonably foreseeable that 

one of his co-conspirators would possess a firearm. He also argues that the record 

does not reflect that the co-conspirator possessed the firearm to further the 

conspiracy. But Williams did not raise either of these arguments to the district 

court. The district court did not plainly err by applying the firearm enhancement 

based on the co-conspirator’s possession of a firearm during a meeting where a 

confidential informant attempted to purchase a controlled substance from 

Williams. That one of the co-conspirators would possess a firearm to protect the 

co-conspirators, their inventory of controlled substances, and their profits was 

reasonably foreseeable.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11706 Date Filed: 02/06/2017 Page: 6 of 6