Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GUEDEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-26
Citations: 388 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 09-50908
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GUEDEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 409–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GUEDEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50908
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 26, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adolfo Guedea appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting. Finding no error, we affirm.
Guedea argues that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The record shows that Guedea sold and delivered drugs for his brother, Luis Guedea Veloz, and collected money owed to Veloz for drugs. Guedea was involved in an extensive drug conspiracy that involved large quantities of drugs and money. Numerous weapons were found at locations where the drug activities had taken place. Ammunition was found at a location where Guedea had sold drugs and collected drug money owed to Veloz.
In light of these facts, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Veloz's possession of a dangerous weapon was reasonably foreseeable to Guedea. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 765-66 (5th Cir.2008). Consequently, the judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.