Ray Len Brooks was indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (count 1); possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime (count 2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (counts 3 and 4). Brooks pled guilty to counts 1 and 4. Count 3 was eventually dismissed. Count 2 proceeded to trial. The jury found Brooks guilty. Bx-ooks contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to establish that he possessed a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime.

Because Brooks px-opex-ly moved fox-judgment of acquittal, “preserving his sufficiency claim for appellate review,” United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir. 2000), we review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de 'novo. Id. “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must detexmine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in suppox-t of the vex-dict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

Brooks pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Thus, the evidence px-oved that he was distributing methamphetamine and possessed the fireax-m illegally. The evidence fux-ther proved that the loaded firearm was located in a desk that also contained methamphetamine, scales, pipes, and packaging-materials. The evidence also proved that the firearm was in close proximity to a package of methamphetamine left by Bx-ooks in his apax-tment’s mail slot for a *366 buyer. Brooks’ insufficient evidence claim is unavailing. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 410-11 (5th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Coleman, 145 Fed. Appx. 859, 860 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (firearm was in the same dresser as the drugs, “[Defendant] was possessing the firearm illegally because he had a prior conviction,” and the firearm was located by two loaded magazines).

AFFIRMED.