IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50864

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN GABRIEL ZUBIA, also known as Juan Gavriel Zubia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-118-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Gabriel Zubia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He argues that the district 

court clearly erred in applying a four-level U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 

enhancement based on a finding that firearms were found in close proximity 

to drug-manufacturing materials and paraphernalia during a drug trafficking 

offense.

 

* 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

June 15, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50864 Document: 00514514505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2018
No. 17-50864

2

For purposes of section 2K2.1(b)(6), a “district court’s determination of 

the relationship between the firearm and another offense is a factual finding”

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 

2010). Subsection (b)(6)(B)’s four-level enhancement is automatically 

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

in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug 

paraphernalia.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) cmt. 

n.14(B)(ii). “‘Drug trafficking offense’ means an offense under federal, state, 

or local law that prohibits . . . the possession of a controlled substance . . . with 

intent to . . . distribute.” See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 147 (5th 

Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“A district court may draw reasonable inferences from the facts when 

determining whether an enhancement applies.” United States v. Juarez, 626 

F.3d 246, 251 (5th Cir. 2010). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is 

plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Coleman, 609 F.3d at 708. A 

presentence report is generally sufficiently reliable to be considered as 

evidence by the district court in making factual determinations. United States 

v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2010).

Overlooking the intervening period between receipt of the tip and his 

arrest, Zubia argues that the failure of the search of his car to yield 

methamphetamine means that a drug trafficking crime cannot be inferred and 

that the presence of drugs is necessary to show evidence of distribution.

However, the undisputed presentence report establishes that a confidential 

informant observed Zubia in a public game room the day prior to his arrest in 

possession of a quantity of methamphetamine and carrying a gun in his 

waistband. When stopped by law enforcement the next day based on the tip, 

Zubia was found in possession of a glass methamphetamine pipe, two guns, 

 Case: 17-50864 Document: 00514514505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2018
No. 17-50864

3

and a digital scale—all in the vehicle’s center console—with a box of plastic 

baggies used in the repackaging of narcotics found on the floor board of the 

back seat. The plastic baggies, digital scale, and his possession of 

methamphetamine and a firearm the day prior allowed the district court to 

reasonably infer that Zubia was engaged in a drug trafficking offense. See 

Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 144, 146-48; United States v. Hunter, 543 F. App’x 374, 

375-76 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50864 Document: 00514514505 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2018