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 *342 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.