Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-27
Citations: 320 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 08-30099
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30099.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 27, 2009.
James Barkeley, Assistant U.S. Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Allison Elizabeth Mendel, Mendel & Associates, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermo Aguirre appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and distribution of 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aguirre challenges the district court's application of the firearm enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the weapon was possessed in connection with the offense and that Aguirre failed to establish that it was "clearly improbable" that the firearm was connected to the drug conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), cmt. n. 3; see also United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir.2006).
Aguirre's contention that the district court erred by considering for sentencing purposes conduct underlying a dismissed count is, as he acknowledges, foreclosed. See United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.