Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-29
Citations: 111 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 04-40486
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 755–755

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40486.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 29, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Vincent Rosales appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of a stolen firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 2, 922®, 924(a)(2). Rosales argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possessing a firearm in connection with the felony offense of burglary, arguing that the stolen firearm was not used "in connection with" the burglary but, rather, was the "object" of the burglary. Rosales misses the mark. First, the guideline in question applies disjunctively to use or possession; and Rosales indisputably possessed the firearm in question during the burglary, from the time it was stolen for the remainder of the burglary. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 323-24 (5th Cir.1999). Second, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Rosales possessed a firearm "in connection with" the burglary offense. See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1199-1200 (5th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d at 322-24. The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.