United States v. Whitaker ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10154
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KARDOLA WHITAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:00-CR-178-1-A)
--------------------
July 30, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Kardola Whitaker appeals her sentence,
which was imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for using a
communication facility to facilitate a drug transaction. She
argues that the district court clearly erred when it increased her
offense level by two for possession of a dangerous weapon, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Her possession was based on the finding
of a firearm underneath the driver’s seat in a car belonging to one
Leroy Doucette in the location where the drug transaction took
place. Whitaker was in the passenger’s seat at the time.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
We review for clear error the district court’s determination
that a gun was possessed during a drug offense warranting a two
level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v.
Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 348 (5th Cir. 1997). Whitaker does not
dispute that she was sitting in the passenger seat of Doucette’s
car during a drug transaction, that a gun was underneath Doucette’s
seat, and that the transaction involved $4,200 worth of crack
cocaine. The district court’s determination that Doucette’s
possession of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Whitaker was
not clear error. See Chavez, 119 F.3d at 348; United States v.
Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Wilson,
105 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir. 1997). As Whitaker received a two-
level reduction under § 201.1(b)(6), the “safety-valve” reduction,
her argument regarding that issue is moot, and therefore, without
merit.
Whitaker’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
2