# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10963 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Adrian Trayvon Spears,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 90

- 6

Before **Barksdale, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Adrian Trayvon Spears pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by possessing firearms in furtherance of drug

trafficking , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924( o ). The district court sentenced him to, inter alia , a within

- Sentencing Guidelines term of 112

- month s’

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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

### FILED August 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2021No. 20

- 10963

2 imprisonment. Spears claims the court erred by: improperly applying an enhancement under Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (use or possession of firearm in con nection with another felony offense) ; and failing to adequately explain its application of that Guideline

. Both claims fail. ( In district court, Spears also challenged the application of that Guideline and Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5) (engaging in trafficking of firearms) because of “double counting” . T h is claim is abandoned on appeal for failure to brief. S ee E. R. by E. R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. , 909 F.3d 754, 763 (5th Cir. 2018) .)

B ecause Spears did not raise either claim in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g. , United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear or obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected hi s substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. As noted, Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies if defendant , inter alia , “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense ”

. In determining whether to apply the enhancement to a drug

trafficking offense, a court should consider whether a firearm “ is found in close proximity to drugs , drug

- manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia ”

. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. n.14(B)

. Spears admi tted to participating in a conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of drug

trafficking crimes , including the facts in the presentence investigation report (PSR). The PSR describes, inter alia , his possess ing multiple bag s of mari h uana and a firearm at the same time

. ( In passing, Spear s claims these

amounts of marihuana could “arguably” be for personal use ; w e do not review such issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2021No. 20

- 10963

3 985 F.2d 222, 2 2 5 (5th Cir. 1993 ) )

. The court’s application of the enhancement was not clear or obvious error

. Regarding the court’s explanation of Spears ’ sentence, “ [t] he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties ’ [claims] and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority ”. United States v. Rouland , 726 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted)

. T he court adequately explained its chosen sentence by adopting the PSR’s factual findings, c onsidering the Government’s claim that the plain language of Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) supported its application, overruling Spears’ objection, and imposing a sentence within the G uidelines range. See United States v. Rhine , 637 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir. 2 011) ( “[T]he adequacy of a district court’s articulation of its reasons for imposing a sentence must be judged in light of the proceeding as a whole, including the facts revealed in the PSR”

. ).

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10963 Document: 00515982432 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2021