United States v. Salazar Mendez , 30 F. App'x 281 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 01-4622
    ANTONIO SALAZAR MENDEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
    (CR-01-72)
    Submitted: February 26, 2002
    Decided: March 19, 2002
    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M.
    Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpen-
    ing, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. MENDEZ
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Salazar-Mendez pled guilty to possession of a firearm by
    an illegal alien, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(5) (1994) and pos-
    session of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime,
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) (1994). For the first time on appeal,
    he challenges his sentence, contending the district court erred in
    applying a four-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2000) for using or
    possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. Find-
    ing no plain error, we affirm.
    Because Mendez did not object to the application of the enhance-
    ment during sentencing, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P.
    52(b); United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
     (1993). We find the Gov-
    ernment provided sufficient evidence that the firearm transactions
    facilitated or potentially facilitated the drug transaction. See United
    States v. Garnett, 
    243 F.3d 824
    , 829 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the
    district court did not commit plain error.
    Accordingly, we affirm Mendez’ sentence. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4622

Citation Numbers: 30 F. App'x 281

Judges: Hamilton, Luttig, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 3/19/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023