UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NAKOMA TOWNSEND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-119)
Submitted: June 25, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, David R. Bungard,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Joshua C. Hanks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nakoma Townsend appeals his eighteen-month sentence
following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm while subject
to a Domestic Violence Protective Order, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2) (2000). Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Townsend contends that the district court
clearly erred in applying a four-level enhancement for possession
of a firearm in connection with another felony offense pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2001). “[W]e
review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error,
giving due deference to the district court’s application of the
Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824,
828 (4th Cir. 2001). Our review of the record reveals that
Townsend carried the firearm on his person while breaking into
Addie McMillan’s house, which no doubt emboldened him during the
commission of the burglary. We have held that it is enough for the
Government to establish that the firearm was used or possessed in
connection with another felony if it shows that the gun was
“present for protection or to embolden the actor.” United
States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). We therefore find that the district court did not
clearly err in applying the enhancement.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Townsend’s sentence. 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 -