Court Opinion

ID: 9912303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 01:00:45.716081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:30.898807
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                          FILED
                                                               December 21, 2023
                                  No. 22-30690
                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Palma Jefferson, Jr.,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:19-CR-174-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge:
          Palma L. Jefferson, Jr. appeals the denial of numerous suppression
   motions related to his conviction for various drug trafficking charges, as well
   as being a felon in possession of a firearm. He further appeals the calculation
   of the relevant drug quantities and the application of the dangerous weapon
   enhancement in his sentence. Because of the independent source doctrine,
   and clear caselaw regarding his sentence, both Jefferson’s conviction and
   sentence are AFFIRMED.
Case: 22-30690     Document: 00517010463           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

                                          I
                                         A
          This case arises out of a Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office investigation
   into Palma L. Jefferson, Jr. On April 29, 2019, Detective Benjamin Jones of
   JPSO was asked by the captain of the narcotics division to follow up on an
   anonymous tip regarding an individual transporting a “large amount of
   cocaine from the Baton Rouge area to the New Orleans metropolitan area.”
   The tipster informed Detective Jones that the transportation of the cocaine
   would take place along Interstate 10 in a green Chevrolet Avalanche with a
   Saints emblem sticker on the rear window. Detective Jones informed his
   fellow investigators and had them set up surveillance along the described
   route. JPSO did not spot any vehicle resembling the one described by the
   tipster, despite waiting an hour past the timeframe the tipster gave them.
          Detective Jones then called the tipster’s number back. Recognizing
   the voice of the tipster, Detective Jones began to ask the tipster for more
   information regarding the alleged cocaine trafficker. During this second
   conversation with the anonymous tipster, Detective Jones received a number
   of key pieces of information. First, the supposed transporter of the cocaine
   went by the nickname “PJ.” Second, the tipster described the destination of
   the cocaine as “the ‘apartments behind Celebration Station’ off of Veterans
   Boulevard” and further identified this location as PJ’s residence. Detective
   Jones recognized this description as the Riverside Drive Apartments, a
   known high crime area. The tipster gave further insight into PJ’s alleged
   operation, explaining that the Riverside Drive Apartment was PJ’s “stash
   house” for drugs, but that most of the trafficking took place around Mazant
   Street because that was where PJ was from.
          In order to help Detective Jones obtain the exact address of PJ’s
   apartment, the tipster offered to use video chat to direct Detective Jones.

                                          2
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

   With the tipster’s guidance, Detective Jones went to PJ’s specific apartment
   within the Riverside Drive complex. The tipster gave detailed instructions
   to Detective Jones, including where to park, which staircase to walk up, and
   that the apartment was on the left-hand side. Further, the tipster said PJ’s
   apartment had a blue blanket hanging in the window. Once Detective Jones
   reached the outside of the apartment the tipster confirmed 6220 Riverside
   Drive, Apartment 555 as PJ’s residence with one hundred percent certainty.
          After locating the apartment, the tipster expressed surprise that JPSO
   had not heard of PJ previously. The tipster mentioned that the nearby
   Kenner Police Department had recently seized a Corvette from PJ as part of
   a drug trafficking investigation and put the Corvette on display. Detective
   Jones asked Detective Carmouche to verify this information with the Kenner
   Police Department, as Detective Carmouche had worked there previously.
   Detective Carmouche reported back that the Kenner Police Department had
   indeed recovered a Corvette from a Palma Jefferson, Jr. Detective Jones also
   ran the 6220 Riverside Drive, Apartment 555 address through police
   databases. That address came back to Palma Jefferson as well. This name
   corresponds with the “PJ” nickname mentioned by the tipster. Palma
   Jefferson was also associated in police databases with an address on the 2300
   block of Mazant Street, further corroborating the tipster’s information. A
   police database also showed that Palma Jefferson, Jr. had recently finished
   serving parole for possession with intent to distribute narcotics, and
   possession of a firearm by a felon.
          With all this information, JPSO began surveillance of both the
   Riverside Drive Apartment and the Mazant Street address. In the early
   morning hours of April 30, 2019, Detective Carmouche watched an
   individual (who ended up being Palma Jefferson, Sr.) exit the Mazant St.
   address, get in a truck, and conduct what looked like “hand-to-hand narcotics
   transactions.” At approximately 7:15 a.m. on April 30, 2019, Detective Jones

                                         3
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463           Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                     No. 22-30690

   watched Palma Jefferson, Jr. and his daughter leave his apartment (6220
   Riverside Drive, Apartment 555) and walk toward their vehicle in the parking
   lot. Detective Jones and three other officers then decided to stop Jefferson.
                                          B
          It is here that substantial differences begin to emerge in the parties’
   recounting of the facts. Jefferson argues that when Detective Jones and the
   other officers first approached him and his daughter, the officers had their
   guns drawn and aimed at them. He then alleges that the police immediately
   placed him in handcuffs while they conducted an “investigatory stop.” This
   version of events comes specifically from Jefferson’s daughter, K.J. She
   testified that both she and her father had already entered the car and put their
   seatbelts on before the officers confronted them with guns drawn and made
   them get out of the car. Jefferson argues this set of facts amounts to a de facto
   arrest without probable cause. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442
   (1984) (stating that “the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the
   suspect’s position would have understood his situation”).
          Alternatively, Detective Jones states that he, along with the other
   three officers, approached Jefferson and K.J. before they had entered the
   vehicle. Furthermore, Detective Jones claims neither he nor his fellow
   officers pointed firearms at Jefferson or his daughter. Rather, Detective
   Jones introduced himself to Jefferson as a narcotics investigator for JPSO,
   asked if they could talk, and informed Jefferson of his Miranda rights.
   According to Detective Jones, Jefferson made clear he understood his
   Miranda rights. Detective Jones then noted that Jefferson began looking
   nervously from side to side as if looking for an escape route. Detective Jones
   noted further that Jefferson’s hand was shaking, causing his keys to jingle.
          Jones claims that, during their conversation, Jefferson lied about living
   at Apartment 555 in the Riverside Drive Apartments. When challenged on

                                          4
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463          Page: 5    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

   this point and told that the officers had just watched him exit Apartment 555,
   Jefferson confessed to having a large quantity of cocaine and a firearm inside
   the Riverside Drive apartment. Jones then asked if anyone else was inside
   Apartment 555. Jefferson replied that his girlfriend was in the apartment.
   According to the government, it was only after these incriminating
   statements that Jefferson was placed in handcuffs.
           After the admission that someone else was in the apartment and that
   drugs were present inside, the officers decided “to enter the apartment and
   secure it to prevent the destruction of evidence, pending the securing of a
   lawful order of search.” The officers found Jefferson’s girlfriend after
   entering, and moved Jefferson, his daughter, and his girlfriend to the living
   room.
           Jefferson alleges that while he was detained in the living room, and
   long before the search warrant application was even drafted, the officers
   began a full search of his apartment. He bases this allegation, in part, on
   timestamps from the camera used to take pictures. The camera recorded
   many photos as taken during the eight o’clock morning hour (the warrant was
   not approved until 9:07 a.m.). That is to say, Jefferson avers that the officers
   did more than just sweep the apartment in order to secure it. According to
   Jefferson, the officers, upon entry, immediately began “opening cabinets,
   removing air conditioner filters, flipping mattresses.” Jefferson also alleges
   that it was at this time that the police began taking pictures of the evidence.
           The government claims that it did not begin the full search until after
   receiving approval of a search warrant application.         They explain the
   timestamps on the photos as a result of not having changed the camera’s
   internal clock to Central Daylight Time from Central Standard Time.
   Detective Jones says he began drafting an application for a warrant to search
   Jefferson’s apartment after the initial protective sweep of the apartment and

                                          5
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463           Page: 6    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                     No. 22-30690

   after Jefferson, his girlfriend, and his daughter were placed in the living room.
   Detective Jones did this drafting in the presence of Detective Richard
   Breaux, who signed Jones’s application and sent it to a judge. The search
   warrant was approved at 9:07 a.m. It was then executed three minutes later
   at 9:10 a.m.
          Later, Jefferson, his girlfriend, and his daughter were all brought in for
   questioning. Jefferson gave a statement which was videotaped with audio. In
   this statement, he admitted that all the evidence seized from Apartment 555
   belonged to him.
                                          C
          Jefferson was charged with the following six crimes: (1) possession
   with intent to distribute heroin; (2) possession with intent to distribute
   cocaine; (3) possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine;
   (4) possession with intent to distribute marijuana; (5) possession of a firearm
   in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and (6) being a felon in possession
   of a firearm. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), 841 (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II),
   841(b)(1)(A)(viii), 841(b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He was
   convicted on all charges except for possession of a firearm in furtherance of
   a drug trafficking crime.
          At trial, Jefferson moved to suppress the evidence found by the
   government on a number of grounds. He argued that the officers searched
   his apartment without a warrant and that all evidence from said warrantless
   search should be suppressed. He further argued that the sworn affidavit
   attesting to probable cause implied that Jefferson had been arrested at 9:10
   a.m. based on the items seized in the search. This would be only three
   minutes after the search warrant was approved.
          Jefferson also averred that he was the subject of a de facto arrest when
   the police stopped him, handcuffed him, and detained him while they

                                           6
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463          Page: 7   Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

   searched his apartment. Jefferson challenged the use of his initial confession
   that cocaine and a gun were in the apartment. He claims he never made that
   statement, but that even if he did, it was obtained unlawfully (in part due to
   his unlawful arrest). Last, Jefferson argued that the search warrant affidavit
   and the arrest warrant affidavit omitted the fact that evidence had been
   obtained unlawfully and that he was therefore entitled to a Franks hearing.
          The district court denied Jefferson’s motion to suppress. The district
   court determined that Detective Jones’s testimony was more reliable than
   K.J.’s. Specifically, it found Detective Jones was both “detailed” and
   “credible.” In contrast, the district court found K.J. was not reliable. K.J.’s
   account of what happened differed even from the facts that her father listed
   in his motion to suppress. Plus, she was young, had difficulty remembering
   what happened, and had every reason to aid her father. The district court
   further stated that even if Jefferson had been handcuffed prior to admitting
   to having cocaine in the apartment, that action by the government only
   amounted to an investigatory stop rather than a full-blown arrest. In addition,
   that investigatory stop was based on reasonable suspicion. The district court
   also determined that the pictures timestamped prior to the issuance of the
   warrant were explained by a failure to change the internal clock of the camera
   to Central Daylight Time from Central Standard Time.
          Finally, the district court denied Jefferson’s request for a Franks
   hearing. The district court found that Jefferson presented no evidence that
   he did not make the admission about the cocaine and the gun being present
   in the apartment. In addition, the district court found that there was
   sufficient evidence to support probable cause coming from evidence not
   obtained in the alleged unlawful search. Accordingly, the evidence that was
   allegedly gathered unlawfully was not necessary for the government to meet
   the probable cause threshold. In addition, all the evidence from the alleged

                                          7
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463          Page: 8    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

   warrantless search would be admissible under the independent source
   doctrine.
          At sentencing, Jefferson objected to two aspects of his presentence
   investigation report. First, he objected to the methodology used to calculate
   his drug quantities. Jefferson argued that the methamphetamine quantities
   should be calculated as MDMA using the Converted Drug Weight in the
   guidelines, or in the alternative as Methamphetamine pills using the CDW in
   the guidelines, rather than multiplying the weight of the extremely small
   number of pills weighed. He also argued that the number of pills should be
   reduced by thirty-six because thirty-six of the pills were for personal use.
   Second, he objected to an enhancement that was applied to his sentence for
   possession of a firearm in furtherance of his drug crimes. He argued that
   because he was acquitted of the crime of possessing a firearm in furtherance
   of a drug trafficking crime, he should not receive an enhancement for
   possessing the gun because he only bought it for protection. Jefferson appeals
   the district court’s overruling of his objections to the PSR.
                                         II
          When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress and
   denial of a Franks hearing, this court applies de novo review for conclusions
   of law and clear error review for factual findings made by the district court.
   United States v. Kendrick, 980 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). “Evidence is
   viewed in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the district
   court—in this case, the Government.” United States v. Nelson, 990 F.3d 947,
   952 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). When the denial of a motion to
   suppress is based on live testimony, “the clearly erroneous standard is
   particularly strong because the judge had the opportunity to observe the
   demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v. Roper, 63 F.4th 473, 476 (5th
   Cir. 2023) (quoting Nelson, 990 F.3d at 953).

                                          8
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463          Page: 9    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

          Likewise, when reviewing a district court’s application of the
   sentencing guidelines, this court uses de novo review. United States v.
   Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The factual
   findings undergirding that application are reviewed for clear error. Id.
                                          A
          Jefferson argues that when the police first approached him, he became
   subject to a de facto arrest. He alleges that because he was handcuffed for a
   substantial period of time, was moved to a different location, and was
   confronted by numerous officers, the initial stop was transformed into a full
   arrest. Jefferson argues his situation is analogous to that of United States v.
   Acosta-Colon, where a de facto arrest occurred because the defendant was not
   allowed to travel, was moved to a different location, and placed in handcuffs.
   157 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 1998). Further, if K.J.’s testimony is credited, the
   officers had firearms drawn when they confronted Jefferson. If Jefferson was
   subjected to a de facto arrest, he contends that his admission should be
   suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371
   U.S. 471, 484 (1963).
          The government responds by arguing that no arrest took place until
   after Jefferson had admitted to having cocaine and a gun in the apartment.
   Further, they claim that no officers drew their guns, blocked Jefferson’s car,
   nor prevented him from walking away. Instead, Jefferson was not handcuffed
   until after the admission. In the alternative, the government argues that this
   was not a stop at all, but a consensual encounter with police. See United States
   v. Wise, 877 F.3d 209, 219–21 (5th Cir. 2017) (determining there was no stop
   where defendant complied with police requests to see identification and
   search his bag). We assume, arguendo, that the police stopped Jefferson and
   that this was not a mere consensual encounter.

                                          9
Case: 22-30690     Document: 00517010463           Page: 10   Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30690

          A Terry stop is a brief detention used by officers to investigate
   suspected criminal activity. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685–
   86 (1985). To justify a Terry stop, an officer only needs reasonable suspicion.
   See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968) (“[I]n justifying the particular
   intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
   facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,
   reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (footnote omitted)).
          Here, reasonable suspicion is satisfied by the information from the
   tipster combined with the suspicious behavior Detective Jones noticed when
   he first approached Jefferson. Recall that Detective Jones observed Jefferson
   looking around nervously, as if for a path of escape. Detective Jones also
   noticed Jefferson’s hand was shaking, causing his keys to jingle. Such
   behavior, along with the corroborated information from the tipster, justifies
   the officers’ decision to stop Jefferson and ask him some basic questions.
          The relevant analysis for whether a police seizure becomes a full
   arrest, as opposed to an investigatory stop, is whether a reasonable person
   would feel his movement has been sufficiently curtailed as to constitute full
   legal arrest. Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 692–93 (5th Cir.
   2017). A reasonable person is not one who is guilty and thus especially
   nervous or anxious. Id. Further, “[u]sing some force on a suspect, pointing
   a weapon at a suspect, ordering a suspect to lie on the ground, and
   handcuffing a suspect—whether singly or in combination—do not
   automatically convert an investigatory detention into an arrest requiring
   probable cause.” Id. at 693 (quoting United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200,
   206 (5th Cir. 1993)). Turner makes clear that even assuming the officers had
   drawn their firearms, the stop still might have been a mere investigatory stop
   for which the officers would only need reasonable suspicion. Turner, 848
   F.3d at 693.

                                         10
Case: 22-30690        Document: 00517010463              Page: 11       Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                          No. 22-30690

           The district court heard the evidence and favored the testimony of
   Detective Jones over that of Jefferson’s daughter. We cannot say that
   determination was clear error. See Roper, 63 F.4th at 476 (“Where, as
   occurred here, ‘a district court's denial of a suppression motion is based on
   live oral testimony, the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong
   because the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
   witnesses.’” (citation omitted)). After Jefferson admitted he had cocaine
   and a gun inside the apartment, the police then had probable cause to make
   the full arrest. Therefore, the initial stop and eventual arrest of Jefferson
   were lawful.
                                                B
           Jefferson argues that the officers unlawfully entered his apartment
   without a warrant. In particular, Jefferson makes two arguments that no
   exigency exception to the warrant requirement applies. First, he avers that
   there was no reasonable belief that evidence was about to be destroyed. See
   United States v. Thompson, 700 F.2d 944, 947–48 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding law
   enforcement must be faced with a “now or never” scenario in order to qualify
   for the destruction of evidence exception to the warrant requirement)
   (quoting Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 505 (1973)). Second, even if there
   was a threat that the evidence was about to be destroyed, Jefferson argues
   that the police created that exigency themselves. “Agents cannot justify
   their search on the basis of exigent circumstances of their own making.”
   Thompson, 700 F.2d at 950 (citations omitted).1

           _____________________
           1
              Jefferson also argues that the officers violated 18 U.S.C. § 3109 for not knocking
   and announcing. Because this argument has no impact on whether Jefferson is entitled to
   a suppression hearing, we do not address it. Jefferson admits in his brief that the remedy
   for a violation of § 3109 is not exclusion of evidence.

                                                11
Case: 22-30690      Document: 00517010463            Page: 12    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                      No. 22-30690

          We do not address the merits of Jefferson’s unlawful entry argument.
   Even if the police had entered Jefferson’s apartment unlawfully and searched
   the premises without a warrant, the evidence obtained could still be admitted
   under the independent source doctrine. Evidence that is “received through
   an illegal source is considered to be cleanly obtained when it arrives through
   an independent source.” United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 102 (5th Cir.
   2009) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 538–39 (1988)).
          Not every bad act by the police ultimately results in suppression of
   evidence. The independent source doctrine allows the government to admit
   evidence if the officers had other means to obtain it lawfully. See United
   States v. Restrepo, 966 F.2d 964, 969 (5th Cir. 1992) (stating that the
   independent source doctrine reflects “‘the policy that, while the government
   should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse
   position than it would otherwise have occupied’ had the misconduct not
   occurred.” (quoting Murray, 487 U.S. at 542)).
          The search warrant later obtained by police was made up of
   corroborated evidence from the tipster and Jefferson’s own admission during
   the investigatory stop that drugs and a gun were in the apartment. See United
   States v. Bryan, No. 00-31491, 2001 WL 1468508, at *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 29,
   2001) (unpublished) (stating that the second search after obtaining a valid
   search warrant using evidence not found in the first search “remove[d] any
   taint from the original seizure”).
                                           C
          Jefferson argues that he is entitled to a Franks hearing primarily
   because of the timestamps on the photos taken from his apartment. The first
   photograph has a timestamp of 8:18 a.m. (49 minutes before the search
   warrant was approved). Because this alleged violation was not included in

                                           12
Case: 22-30690        Document: 00517010463               Page: 13       Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                          No. 22-30690

   the application for a search warrant, Jefferson argues that it constitutes a
   preliminary showing of reckless disregard for truth.
           The government responds that the timestamps can merely be
   explained as an administrative error. The internal clock on the camera had
   not been changed from Central Standard Time to Central Daylight Time.
   This means that the internal clock for the camera was an hour ahead of the
   actual time the photos were taken. This would mean that the first photo was
   taken at 9:18 a.m. (11 minutes after the search warrant was approved).
           While this may be a close question as a matter of first impression, we
   cannot say it was clear error for the district court to credit the government’s
   version of events. Kendrick, 980 F.3d at 439.2
           Regardless, Jefferson does not clear the bar to obtaining a Franks
   hearing.     Franks hearings require that the defendant show “deliberate
   falsehood” or a “reckless disregard for the truth” on the part of the officers.
   Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). That showing must point out
   what part of the warrant affidavit is false. Id. “Affidavits or sworn or
   otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their
   absence satisfactorily explained.” Id. The district court found that none of
   this took place. “Indeed, defendant has not pointed to any concrete evidence
   that could demonstrate the affiant’s deliberate falsehood or reckless
   disregard for the truth.”3 Nowhere in the record does Jefferson provide any

           _____________________
           2
             Furthermore, the independent source analysis above applies here as well. None
   of the photos taken were used to support the search warrant application.
           3
            Even if Jefferson had provided the requisite concrete evidence, Franks also states
   that “when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to
   one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of
   probable cause, no hearing is required.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171–72 (footnote omitted).
   Here there is sufficient evidence to justify the search warrant without the pictures. The

                                                13
Case: 22-30690        Document: 00517010463               Page: 14       Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                          No. 22-30690

   sworn statements.           He only points to the timestamps and other
   misstatements.4
                                                III
                                                A
           Jefferson correctly points out that the government did not weigh every
   bit of the drugs they seized from his apartment. Instead, only a tiny fraction
   of the drugs was weighed. Those weights were averaged and multiplied in
   order to estimate the total weight of the drugs. On appeal, Jefferson is only
   contesting the methamphetamine calculation. He argues that those pills
   should be measured as MDMA instead of methamphetamine because only a
   few of the MDMA pills were analyzed and those pills had some
   methamphetamine present. But that does not mean that the other pills are
   not pure MDMA as initially suspected.5
           In the alternative, Jefferson argues that the pills should be measured
   under the “typical weight” methodology. “If the number of doses, pills, or
   capsules but not the weight of the controlled substance is known,” the
   guidelines instruct calculation to be performed by multiplying “the number

           _____________________
   tipster’s corroborated information along with the admission means no Franks hearing is
   required.
           4
               Jefferson also argues that his arrest warrant is invalid. He points out that the
   search warrant was approved at 9:07 a.m. but that he was arrested at 9:10 a.m., only three
   minutes later. This would mean that the arrest took place even before any pictures were
   taken under the government’s timeline. This is explained as a mere clerical error, or a lack
   of ability to list both times on the form. The probable cause affidavit in the arrest warrant
   states that “on the above date and time, agents executed a lawful order of search . . . .” The
   above time is 9:10 a.m. However, that time is written on a line labeled “time of arrest.”
           5
             Jefferson’s argument that the number of pills should be reduced because some of
   them were for personal use is not addressed because the thirty-six-pill reduction could not
   possibly impact his guideline range no matter how the weight is calculated.

                                                14
Case: 22-30690     Document: 00517010463            Page: 15    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                     No. 22-30690

   of doses, pills, or capsules by the typical weight per dose in the table below to
   estimate the total weight of the controlled substance.”             U.S. Sent’g
   Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 cmt. n.9 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2021). This
   would result in a lower guideline range for Jefferson.
          Jefferson’s argument is unpersuasive because the end of note nine of
   the commentary to the guidelines states: “Do not use this table if any more
   reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-specific
   information.” Id.
          Using a measured weight for each different type of pill and
   extrapolating is more accurate than using the statutorily provided number
   when the weight of each individual pill is unknown. Further, the few tested
   pills all tested positive for methamphetamine. It is therefore reasonable to
   extrapolate from the tested pills to the rest of the pills that are the same type.
   See United States v. Dinh, 920 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (stating that
   “sentencing courts are permitted to extrapolate the nature and quantity of
   drugs in an offense based on lab reports that tested only a sample of the
   overall quantity” (citations omitted)). It was not error for the district court
   to accept these results.
                                           B
          Jefferson received an enhancement for possessing a firearm. U.S.S.G.
   § 2D1.1(b)(1). Jefferson argues that because he was acquitted of count five
   of his indictment (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
   crime) he should not have a sentence enhancement applied to him for
   possessing a dangerous weapon. Jefferson asserts that the gun was for
   protection because he lived in a dangerous neighborhood.
          Jefferson’s argument is foreclosed by our precedent.            We have
   previously held that the requirement for the sentencing enhancement is
   lower than the requirement for the actual charge of which Jefferson was

                                           15
Case: 22-30690     Document: 00517010463             Page: 16   Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                      No. 22-30690

   acquitted. See United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 610 (5th Cir. 2014). In
   Akins, the gun was also found along with drugs and under a mattress. We
   said it was not clear error to determine the weapon was connected to the drug
   offense and to therefore apply the enhancement. Id.
          In addition, “[t]he enhancement should be applied if the weapon was
   present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with
   the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). The example in the comment
   is an unloaded hunting rifle in a closet. Id. Here, unlike a hunting rifle in a
   closet, the gun was found with the drugs. It is not improbable that a gun
   found with narcotics would be connected to the drug trafficking offense.
                                  *        *         *
          For the foregoing reasons, both Jefferson’s conviction and sentence
   are AFFIRMED.

                                           16