PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Marcos Antonio Martinez-Uriote was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. Martinez-Uriote now appeals, contending that the district court erred by finding that the offense “involved the importation of amphetamine or methamphetamine” for the purposes of applying a two-level enhancement to *2 Case: 16-11003 Document: 00513933267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2017

No. 16-11003

his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) because there was insufficient evidence that he possessed imported methamphetamine. We review the district court’s factual determination that Martinez-Uriote’s offense involved the importation of methamphetamine for clear error. See United States v. Serfass , 684 F.3d 548, 550, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2012).

“[D]istribution (or possession with intent to distribute) of imported methamphetamine, even without more, may subject a defendant to the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement.” United States v. Foulks , 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). Considering the record as a whole, the district court plausibly inferred that the methamphetamine Martinez-Uriote possessed with intent to distribute had been imported from Mexico. See Serfass , 684 F.3d at 550; see also United States v. Castillo-Curiel , 579 F. App’x 239, 239 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. See Foulks , 747 F.3d at 915.

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.