UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMANUEL HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-02-94)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 12, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emanuel Harris pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The
district court sentenced him to fifty-two months imprisonment to be
followed by three years of supervised release and ordered him to
pay a $1500 fine and a $100 special assessment. Harris appeals his
sentence. His counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue, but stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Harris was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Harris’ counsel raises as a potential issue the district
court’s application of a two-level increase under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) (2002), based upon the finding
that the offense involved five firearms. Counsel asserts that
Harris should have been held accountable only for the two firearms
charged in the superseding indictment and not the three additional
firearms seized from his home. We disagree. “Enhancements under
Section 2K2.1(b) consistently reference the term ‘offense,’ not
merely ‘offense of conviction.’” United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d
718, 724 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court properly determined
Harris’ offense level by including relevant conduct. See id.; USSG
§ 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(k)). We therefore find that the district
court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement. United
2
States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating
standard of review).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Harris’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3