United States v. Roger Reid , 684 F. App'x 351 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4472
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER EMANUEL REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:15-cr-00090-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2017 Decided: April 11, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Parke Davis, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester,
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Emanuel Reid pled guilty to knowingly and unlawfully
possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). He appeals from his
51-month sentence, alleging that the district court erred by
enhancing his sentence by four-levels under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2015) because he possessed
the firearm at issue in connection with another felony. We
affirm.
We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 US. 38, 41 (2007). In considering whether a
district court properly imposed a Sentencing Guidelines
enhancement, we review a district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States
v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 337 (4th Cir. 2012). Whether a
defendant possessed a firearm in connection with another felony
is a factual question we review for clear error. United States
v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). We will find a
court’s factual findings clearly erroneous only if we are “left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Where there are
2
two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).
Here, police entered Reid’s home pursuant to a search
warrant. Police found Reid there with the firearm and in
possession of various items of drug paraphernalia. Reid
admitted that he had been dealing cocaine from the home, which
was equipped with a surveillance camera, for months.
Reid argues on appeal that the district court erred in
applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because no drug
trafficking offense was ongoing at the time police entered
Reid’s home. We hold that the district court’s application of
the enhancement is not clearly erroneous, and that the
underlying evidence fully supports application of the
enhancement.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3