IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ISAAC DWAYNE CALDWELL, 

Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-774-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Defendant Isaac Caldwell pled guilty to being a felon in possession 

of a firearm. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement over 

Caldwell’s objection for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony 

offense, namely, drug trafficking. We conclude that the enhancement is 

applicable and thus AFFIRM. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 8, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40601 Document: 00514948882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2019
No. 18-40601

2

BACKGROUND

In October 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms learned 

that Caldwell was seeking a source to supply him with cocaine. An undercover 

ATF agent posed as a seller and contacted Caldwell to discuss a possible sale. 

The agent learned that Caldwell planned to distribute the cocaine to other 

people. Caldwell told the agent that “the people with the money were located 

in Atlanta, Georgia,” but that he had several firearms that he could give the 

agent as a down payment for the drugs. The agent agreed to this arrangement.

Caldwell met the agent in a movie theater parking lot, where Caldwell 

gave the agent a rifle and over one thousand rounds of ammunition. Caldwell 

then drove away. There were no drugs at the scene of the encounter. After the

encounter, the agent continued to communicate with Caldwell regarding the 

sale, but no cocaine was ever exchanged with Caldwell.

Caldwell was eventually arrested and indicted for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

Caldwell pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. At sentencing and over 

Caldwell’s objection, the district court applied a four-level sentencing 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in 

connection with another felony offense. Caldwell was ultimately sentenced to 

77 months in prison. Caldwell now appeals the application of the 

enhancement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In determining 

whether a Guidelines enhancement applies, the district court is allowed to 

draw reasonable inferences from the facts, and these inferences are fact 

findings reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 

 Case: 18-40601 Document: 00514948882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2019
No. 18-40601

3

(5th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). “The district court’s determination 

of the relationship between the firearm and another offense is a factual 

finding.” Id.

DISCUSSION

We conclude that the district court correctly applied the sentencing 

enhancement to Caldwell. Under that enhancement, “[i]f the defendant . . . 

used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another 

felony offense . . . increase by 4 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The relevant 

Application Notes provide more explanation. Application Note 14(A) is labeled 

“In General” and states that the enhancement applies “if the firearm or 

ammunition facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another felony 

offense or another offense, respectively.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 14(A). 

Application Note 14(B) is labeled “Application When Other Offense is Burglary 

or Drug Offense.” It states that the enhancement applies “in the case of a drug 

trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs, drugmanufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 

§ 14(B).

A glance at the titles of these application notes might suggest that Note 

14(B) applies exclusively when the “other offense” is burglary or drug 

trafficking offenses, and Note 14(A) applies when the “other offense” is 

everything else. A closer examination, however, reveals that Note 14(B) is not 

the exclusive way in which the enhancement applies to drug trafficking 

offenses. Therefore, 14(A) may apply when the other offense is one for drug 

trafficking.

First, nothing in 14(B)’s text indicates that it creates the exclusive rule 

when drug trafficking is the “other offense.” It says that the Guideline applies 

“in the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close 

 Case: 18-40601 Document: 00514948882 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/08/2019
No. 18-40601

4

proximity to drugs,” not that the Guideline applies only in such a case. It is 

true that this court said in United States v. Jeffries that while Note 14(B) 

applies to drug trafficking offenses, “all other felony offenses” fall under Note 

14(A). 587 F.3d 690, 692–93 (5th Cir. 2009). But the court made this 

statement to clarify that 14(B) does not apply to mere drug possession (as 

opposed to trafficking). See id. at 693. In other words, Jeffries does not mean 

that for drug trafficking, 14(B) is the only relevant application note, unlike 

drug possession. 

Additionally, other circuits all indicate that meeting 14(B) is a sufficient 

but not necessary way in which the enhancement may apply to drug trafficking 

offenses. See United States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709, 717-18 (1st Cir. 2011);

United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009); 

United States v. Fuentes Torres, 529 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2008). Indeed, the 

Sentencing Commission adopted 14(B) as a “second clarification” after 14(A) to 

explain that “in the case of a drug trafficking offense, there is a sufficient nexus 

between the gun and the offense when the firearm is found in close proximity 

to the drugs.” Paneto, 661 F.3d at 717 (internal quotation marks and emphasis 

omitted). That clarification highlights one way in which a gun can facilitate a 

drug trafficking offense, not the only way. See United States v. Reyes, 

668 F. App’x 858, 858–59 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining, in a drug trafficking 

case, that section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies if the gun facilitated an offense under 

Note 14(A) and “also applies” under Note 14(B) if the other offense is drug 

trafficking; upholding enhancement against defendant who sold gun and drugs 

in one transaction because the sale of the gun “both facilitated the 

simultaneous drug transaction and had the potential to facilitate future drug 

resale transactions”). For these reasons, we conclude that Note 14(B) is not 

 Case: 18-40601 Document: 00514948882 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/08/2019
No. 18-40601

5

the exclusive way in which § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) can apply to drug trafficking 

offenses. 

Because 14(B) is not exclusive, 14(A), the general rule, may apply to 

Caldwell. Caldwell gave the ATF agent a gun as a down payment for drugs. 

Thus, “the firearm . . . facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another 

felony offense or another offense, respectively,” namely, attempted drug

trafficking. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 14(A). The district court did not clearly 

err in finding that the gun facilitated Caldwell’s attempted trafficking offense.

The district court’s sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-40601 Document: 00514948882 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/08/2019