UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4567
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH GORDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-1092)
Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: July 5, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank L. Eppes, EPPES & PLUMBLEE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney,
Regan A. Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Gordy pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
more than 500 grams of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (West
1999 & Supp. 2005) (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2005) (Count 3), conspiracy to
launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2005) (Count 4), and maintaining a drug-involved premises for
the purpose of distributing five kilograms or more of cocaine, and
aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 856(a)(1)-(2) (West Supp. 2005), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) (Count 5).
He appeals his sentence of concurrent 135-month prison terms on
each count, asserting that the district court erred by applying the
two-level firearm enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2004). We affirm.
Under the guidelines, a defendant’s offense level must be
increased by two under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) if a dangerous weapon was
possessed during the offense. This “adjustment should be applied
if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the
weapon was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) cmt.
n.3. The district court’s enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) is
reviewed for clear error. United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d
228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001).
In order to apply the enhancement, the government need
not establish a perfect connection between the possession of the
- 2 -
firearm and the commission of the drug offense. Id. The
enhancement does not “require[] proof of precisely concurrent acts,
for example, a gun in hand while in the act of storing drugs, drugs
in hand while in the act of retrieving a gun.” United States v.
Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks
omitted). On review of the record, we cannot say that the district
court committed clear error in applying the firearm enhancement to
Gordy.
Gordy’s claim that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement violates
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is without merit. We
find that the district court fully considered the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) in imposing
Gordy’s sentence. Because the district court imposed a sentence
within the properly calculated guideline range and within the
statutory maximum, we find the sentence reasonable. United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
74 U.S.L.W. 3654 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474).
Accordingly, we affirm Gordy’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 -