UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4290
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MESURON D. TAYLOR, a/k/a Mezy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-250)
Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Audrey Freeman jaCobs, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Matthew C. Ackley, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mesuron D. Taylor, a.k.a. “Mezy,” appeals his thirty-four
month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession
of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). Taylor contends that the district court clearly erred in
applying a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm “with
knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or
possessed in connection with another felony offense” pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2004). We find no
error and affirm Taylor’s sentence.
“When reviewing the District Court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, . . . [w]e accept the findings of fact of
the District Court unless they are clearly erroneous and give due
deference to the District Court’s application of the guidelines to
the facts.” United States v. Cutler, 36 F.3d 406, 407 (4th Cir.
1994). Our review of the record reveals that Taylor and three
others attempted to confront the individual responsible for the
theft of a companion’s firearm. Testimonial evidence supported a
finding that after some discussion on the necessity of being armed
for the confrontation, Taylor retrieved a firearm in order to “go
shoot his ass.” Police intercepted Taylor and his three companions
prior to their arrival at their intended destination. A firearm
was recovered from the vehicle. Because evidence supported the
district court’s factual conclusions, we find that the district
- 2 -
court did not clearly err in its application of the challenged
enhancement.
Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’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 -