United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50607

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

David Madrid, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:23-CR-47-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

David Madrid was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent 

to distribute actual methamphetamine and sentenced within the advisory 

guidelines range to 210 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court’s 

assessment of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50607 Document: 55-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2024
No. 23-50607

2

possession of a dangerous weapon was error, as the evidence was insufficient 

to attribute knowledge or foreseeability of his co-defendant Hanna Rodgers’s 

firearm to him. Because Madrid preserved the error, we review the district 

court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for 

clear error. See United States v. Barry, 978 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 2020).

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) establishes a two-level enhancement for those 

convicted of a drug-trafficking offense “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a 

firearm) was possessed[.]” § 2D1.1(b)(1). The Government must prove 

possession of a weapon by a preponderance of the evidence, which it can do 

in two ways. United States v. Sincleair, 16 F.4th 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Relevant here, “when another individual involved in the commission of an 

offense possessed the weapon, the Government must show that the 

defendant could have reasonably foreseen that possession.” United States v. 

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 765 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks and citation 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, such as a firearm,” 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). 

Under this standard, and contrary to Madrid’s assertions, the fact that 

a defendant may not have known about a co-defendant’s firearm is irrelevant. 

See, e.g., United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 285-86 (5th Cir. 1997); United 

States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 559 (5th Cir. 1996).

The unrebutted facts in the record support the district court’s finding 

that Rodgers’s possession of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Madrid 

Case: 23-50607 Document: 55-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2024
No. 23-50607

3

and that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was appropriate. Both the 

presentence report and the factual basis confirm that Madrid and Rodgers, 

who were in a romantic relationship and owned a business together, were 

engaged in jointly undertaken drug-trafficking involving a significant quantity 

of drugs at the time and place that the gun was found, immediately following 

a controlled purchase by a confidential informant (the proceeds of which 

were found in Madrid’s pocket) and while the informant negotiated a second 

purchase of a larger quantity of methamphetamine. The firearm was found 

in the same nightstand as some of the methamphetamine to which Madrid 

pleaded guilty, and Rodgers knowingly possessed the gun in connection with 

their jointly undertaken drug-trafficking activity. The district court could 

plausibly infer, on this record, that Rodgers’s possession of a gun was 

reasonably foreseeable to Madrid. See Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d at 390; 

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 765-66.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50607 Document: 55-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2024