Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MALVEAUX, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 03-41618
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MALVEAUX, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MALVEAUX, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41618.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
John B. Stevens, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy R. Blalock, Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s, Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Malveaux appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Malveaux argues that the district court erred in applying the enhancement provision found in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) of the Sentencing Guidelines, because there was no evidence that Malveaux possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law of this circuit, we hold that the district court did not err, as a matter of law, in concluding that the firearm possession was "in connection with" the drug possession. 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). Accordingly, the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), and the judgment of 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.