
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-51117.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 25, 2004.
    Diane D. Kirstein, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rogelio F. Munoz, Uvalde, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Martinez appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine. Martinez argues that the district court erred in finding that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense and, as a result, in imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and denying a safety-valve adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

Section 2Dl.l(b)(l) calls for a two-level increase in the offense level for a drug trafficking offense “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). Because the confidential informant saw, on at least one occasion, Martinez wearing a weapon during the offense and a weapon was found in the same location where a number of offenses occurred, we find that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Martinez possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense. See United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 430 (5th Cir.2001).

Additionally, the district court’s finding that Martinez possessed a firearm for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) also “disqualified [him] from being eligible for the ‘safety valve’ provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.” United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir.1996). Because Martinez has failed to show that the district court erred in imposing the U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) enhancement, he consequently has also failed to show that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. See id.; Vasquez, 161 F.3d 909, 912-13 (5th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     