UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Robert BARTH, Defendant-Appellant, 150 F. App'x 327

PER CURIAM: Steven Robert Barth appeals his jury-trial conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana; conspiracy to import 100 kilograms or more marijuana; and using, carrying, and possessing semiautomatic assault rifles in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Barth was sentenced to 241 months in prison. Barth first argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions.

A reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that Barth knew that Arlo Arreola and his associates were smuggling drugs into the United States and distributing them and that he knowingly joined the conspiracies and possessed the assault weapons in furtherance of those drug-trafficking crimes. United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 766 (5th Cir.1991); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846; 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Barth additionally argues for the first time on appeal that he should be resentenced on his drug-trafficking conspiracy convictions in light of United States v. Booker. This claim fails to meet the plain-error standard because Barth has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Jul. 26, 2005) (No. 05-5535); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005).

However, we do find that Barth’s argument that his convictions and sentences for carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking offense are multiplicitous and violate double jeopardy is meritorious. United States v. Privette, 947 F.2d 1259, 1262 (5th Cir.1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court so that it may vacate one of the firearm convictions and resentence Barth as to the firearm convictions. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENC-ING. 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.