United States Court of Appeals

for 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 drugtrafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o). The district court sentenced 

him to, inter alia, a within-Sentencing Guidelines term of 112-months’ 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 08/17/2021
No. 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 connection 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”. This

claim is abandoned on appeal for failure to brief. See E. R. by E. R. v. Spring 

Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F.3d 754, 763 (5th Cir. 2018).)

Because 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 

his 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 drugtrafficking 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 admitted to 

participating in a conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of drugtrafficking crimes, including the facts in the presentence investigation report

(PSR). The PSR describes, inter alia, his possessing multiple bags of 

marihuana and a firearm at the same time. (In passing, Spears claims these 

amounts of marihuana could “arguably” be for personal use; we 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: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10963

3

985 F.2d 222, 225 (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). The court adequately explained 

its chosen sentence by adopting the PSR’s factual findings, considering 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 Guidelines range. See United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 

525, 529 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[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