United States v. Bullock

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2023
• Docket: 22-10966
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-10966 Document: 00516837811 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 22-10966 July 28, 2023 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Qualan Bullock,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-420-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Qualan Bullock pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Bullock contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his offense level by four for possessing a firearm “in connection with another felony offense” per U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10966 Document: 00516837811 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2023

No. 22-10966

We review the sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court did not err in holding that Bullock was involved in drug distribution offenses for purposes of the enhancement. See Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 146-48; Trujillo, 502 F.3d at 357; § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14(B)(ii)). We need only find that the district court’s inferences are plausible, which they are in light of the record. Coleman, 609 F.3d at 708. “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bullock’s various contentions—his challenging of the district court’s consideration of the quantity of drugs that he possessed, his possession of a scale, and his conversation with his girlfriend—are unavailing. See United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 256 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.