### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11591 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MICHAEL SE AN GOSS, also known as “Killer, ”

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 121

- 4

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Michael Sean Goss has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Goss has filed a n untimely respons e , which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out

- of

- time response

. We GRANT Goss leave to file his untimely

response . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 3, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11591 Document: 00514223389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2017No. 16

- 11591

2 record reflected therein , as well as Goss ’ s response . We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Goss argues that the district court erred in applying the two

- level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm. “A defendant’ s sentence may properly be enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) if the possession of a firearm by one of his coconspirators was reasonably foreseeable.” United States v. Hernandez , 457 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2006). As stated in the PSR, Goss purchased methamphetamine multiple times from a coconspirator who was known to carry a firearm during drug transactions. This court has held that a coconspirator’s use of a firearm in a drug transaction will ordinarily be foreseeable “because firearms are tools of the trade in drug conspiracies.” Id. (quoting United States v. Dixon , 132 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir. 1997) )

. Thus, Goss has not raised a non

- frivolous argument with respect to
this enhancement. Goss also argues that there is insufficient evidence that he “maintained”

a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled
substance within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Though Goss filed a written objection to the applic ation of § 2D1.1(b)(12), he withdre w his objection at sentencing. A defendant’s withdrawal of an objection constitutes the waiver of that objection , and “[w]aived errors are entirely unreviewable

. ” United States v. Musquiz , 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 199 5)

. Therefore , Goss has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12). See United States v. Rico , 864 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (withdrawal of written objection to enhancement at sentencing hearin g constituted waiver). Case: 16-11591 Document: 00514223389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2017No. 16

- 11591

3 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-11591 Document: 00514223389 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2017