Su Van Nguyen appeals his 63-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to distribute 3, 4-Methylenedioxy-methamphet-amine (MDMA), and possession with intent to distribute MDMA. In his sole claim of error on appeal, Nguyen argues that, because the Government failed to prove that he possessed the firearm or that the firearm was related to drug trafficking, the district court’s decision overruling his objection to the enhancement of his sentence based on his possession of a firearm in *375 connection with a drug trafficking offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) was based on the clearly erroneous presumption that he was strictly liable for the possession of the firearm by his codefendant.

The district court determined that the firearm was connected with the offense because it was jointly possessed by Nguyen and his codefendant in a vehicle containing MDMA. Although the testimony at trial was conflicting, by its ruling, the district court implicitly found Nguyen’s and his co-defendant’s testimony incredible. Such credibility determinations are within the province of the district court and will not be disturbed by this court. United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799 (5th Cir. 1996).

The remaining evidence presented at trial indicated that Nguyen’s codefendant knowingly possessed the firearm for the purpose of protecting the drugs and the drug proceeds, and that Nguyen was aware that he was participating in criminal activity involving transporting drugs. The evidence thus shows that Nguyen was engaged in jointly undertaken criminal activity, see U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B), and the district court reasonably inferred that Nguyen should have foreseen his codefendant’s possession of the firearm. See United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court did not clearly err by applying the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) enhancement. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir. 1998). Nguyen’s sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.