IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11503

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM JOSEPH OROZCO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-118-3

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Joseph Orozco pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced below 

the advisory guidelines range to 210 months of imprisonment and a three-year 

term of supervised release. Orozco argues on appeal that the district court 

erred by applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for 

possession of a dangerous weapon, namely a firearm.

 

* 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

July 7, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11503 Document: 00514064204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2017
No. 16-11503

2

The “district court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings . . . are reviewed for 

clear error. There is no clear error if the district court’s finding is plausible in 

light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 

751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). 

While it is undisputed that Orozco preserved his argument by objecting on the 

same grounds below, the parties disagree as to whether the argument concerns 

the district court’s factual findings or the district court’s application of the 

Guidelines. See id. We need not resolve the issue because Orozco’s argument 

fails regardless of whether review is for clear error or de novo.

Because there is no indication in the record that Orozco personally 

possessed a firearm, the Government must demonstrate that “another 

individual involved in the commission of [the] offense possessed the weapon,” 

and that Orozco “could have reasonably foreseen that possession.” Id. at 764-

65 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). “[B]ecause firearms are 

tools of the trade of those engaged in illegal drug activities, a district court may 

ordinarily infer that a defendant should have foreseen a co-defendant’s 

possession of a dangerous weapon” where “the government demonstrates that

another participant knowingly possessed the weapon while he and the 

defendant committed the offense by jointly engaging in concerted criminal 

activity involving a quantity of narcotics sufficient to support an inference of 

an intent to distribute.” United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the 

“amount of drugs [involved] . . . and their street value increase the 

likelihood―and thus foreseeability―that those involved in the conspiracy will 

have dangerous weapons.” Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 766.

 Case: 16-11503 Document: 00514064204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2017
No. 16-11503

3

While Orozco argues that he could not have reasonably foreseen the 

knowing possession of a firearm by his coconspirator John Phillip Ishak, Jr., 

the undisputed facts do not support his argument. Orozco’s own residence was 

frequently used to store and sell methamphetamine, Orozco and Ishak engaged 

in several drug runs together, and Ishak visited Orozco’s residence on at least 

six occasions with drugs and a firearm. Given that, Ishak’s knowing possession 

of the firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Orozco for purposes of applying 

the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. See Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 765-66.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11503 Document: 00514064204 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2017