### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40670 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. IVAN PAREDES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 1857

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ivan Paredes challenges his 60

- month prison sentence , imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for possession , with intent to distribute , more than 500 grams of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . He contends the dis trict court erred by applying two , two

level enhancement s , pur s uant to Sentencing Guidelines § § 2D1.1(b)(1) ( increase two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 2, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2015No. 14

- 40670
the drug o ffense ) , and 2D1.1(b)(12) ( increase two levels for maintaining the premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing drugs )

. Although post

- Booker , the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sent ence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines

- sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007 ). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Although t his co urt review s the district court’s interpretation of the G uidelines de novo , its deciding a § 2D1.1 enhancement applies is reviewed only for clear

error. E.g., United States v. Akins , 746 F.3d 590, 610 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 707 (2014); United States v. Zapata

- Lara , 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010). Paredes claims his use of the premises to manufacture and distribute cocaine was incidental or collateral to its use as a residence . He asserts , inter alia , the storage of the cocaine in an unse cure location ( the residence’s garage ), and his family’s non

- involvement with the cocaine support this contention. There was no clear error in applying the enhancement ; that Paredes knowingly maintained a residence primarily for the purpose of storing a c ontrolled substance for later distribution is not “unreasonable or implausible in light of the record as a whole”

. United States v. Ramos , 509 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2013); a ccord U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.17. Regarding the dangerous

- weapon enhancemen t under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1) , Paredes claims he possessed the weapon for h ome - protection

2 Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2015No. 14

- 40670
purposes. In support, he notes the weapon was stored in the bedroom, roughly 30

– 40 feet from the garage where the drugs were stored

. Nevertheless, a connection between the firearm discovered in the residence and Paredes ’ drug

related offense was not “clearly improbable.” United States v. Rodriguez , 62 F.3d 723, 724 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.11(A); see also, e.g., Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d at 7 65

– 66

. Further, Paredes’ assertion is a challenge to the court’s credibility determination, which is “peculiarly within the province” of the district court and will not be disturbed by this court. United States v. Goncalves , 613 F.3d 601, 60 9 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2015