United States v. Hughs

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 1, 2008
No. 07-41242
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOHN PHILLIP HUGHS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-113-1
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Phillip Hughs appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends the district
court erred by increasing his sentence for possessing a firearm in connection
with possession of methamphetamine, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6).
Hughs asserts the adjustment was inapplicable because there was no evidence
his use or possession of the firearm facilitated or made more dangerous any
other felony offense.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
No. 07-41242
Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-
discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the guideline-
sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). In that respect, its application of the
guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g.,
United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).
The loaded shotgun in Hughs’ van was readily available to Hughs to
protect his drug-related activities and had the potential to facilitate those
activities. United States v. Conden, 18 F.3d 1190, 1200 (5th Cir. 1994); § 2K2.1
cmt. n.14(A). There is an “automatic increase in the danger of physical violence
. . . when drugs and guns are present together”. United States v. Houston, 364
F.3d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Fadipe, 43 F.3d 993, 994-
95 (5th Cir. 1995)). Therefore, the district court did not err in applying an
increase to Hughs’ sentence pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6). See United States v.
Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1200 (5th Cir. 1994); § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A).
AFFIRMED.
2