Shaun Alan Glaze appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Glaze argues that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the Government failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that he was engaged in drug trafficking.

As Glaze’s objection below, which was based upon the firearm’s lack of proximity to the drugs and drug paraphernalia at issue, failed to alert the district court sufficiently to his current argument, plain error review applies. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). A district court’s determination that a firearm was possessed in connection with another offense for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is a factual' finding. See United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). “Questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991); accord United States v. Delacruz, 801 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir. 2015). Thus, Glaze necessarily fails to show plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361.

AFFIRMED.