
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky B. RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10262.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 30, 2005.
    Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
    
      Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ricky B. Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Ramirez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with four exceptions. His appeal is not barred, however, because his challenge to an incorrect application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was one of the listed exceptions to his appeal-waiver provision.)

Ramirez contends the district court erred by increasing his sentence for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Ramirez’s sentencing hearing was held following the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court held the § 2K2.1(b)(5) adjustment was applicable. Post-Booker, this court continues to review the interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005).

Ramirez claims the adjustment was not applicable to his sentence because: (1) the firearm and drugs found in his motel room were not spatially proximate because they were contained in separate bags, one of which was claimed by his girlfriend; and (2) there was insufficient evidence that he had possession of the drugs. The district court did not err in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(5) adjustment. See United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190,1199-1200 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 856, 115 S.Ct. 161, 130 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994) (holding that a loaded gun in a defendant’s locked desk drawer was within sufficient proximity to drugs elsewhere in the room to satisfy § 2K2.1(b)(5), even though the defendant claimed he was only keeping the gun as collateral).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     