
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-31142.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 22, 2004.
    Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Rebecca L Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roosevelt Jackson appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. Jackson was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Jackson argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in making an adjustment of his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) because the Government provided no evidence that he had knowledge of, or access to, the weapons found in a bedroom dresser in his residence. He argues that there was no evidence of a temporal or spatial relationship between the weapons and his drug-trafficking activities.

The Government presented evidence that Jackson regularly sold crack cocaine from his residence. Crack cocaine as well as drug paraphernalia were discovered in the residence at the same time that the weapons and ammunition were found there. Thus, there was proof of a temporal and spatial relationship among the weapon, the drug-trafficking activity, and Jackson. United, States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th Cir.1993).

The state court’s order for the destruction of the weapons discovered at the time and place that Jackson was found in possession of drugs for which he was convicted raised an inference that the weapons belonged to Jackson. Jackson failed to rebut this inference. The defendant has the burden to rebut the reliable evidence used against him at sentencing. United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 455 (5th Cir.2002). Jackson has not carried that burden.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     