UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EARL DWIGHT REVELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00045-NCT-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Dwight Revels pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and
was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Revels timely appealed.
Counsel for Revels filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court properly enhanced his sentence. Revels has
filed a pro se supplemental brief essentially raising the same
claim. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A defendant is subject to a four-level enhancement
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6)
(2007) if he “used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection
with another felony offense.” The purpose of this enhancement
is “to ensure that a defendant receives more severe punishment
if, in addition to committing a firearms offense within the
scope of § 2K2.1, he commits a separate felony offense that is
rendered more dangerous by the presence of a firearm.” United
States v. Blount, 337 F.3d 404, 406 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing
former USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2001)). To determine whether the
enhancement should apply, the district court must consider
whether the defendant committed a separate felony offense and
whether the firearm underlying the conviction was possessed “in
2
connection with” the additional felony. Id. at 406-07. This
requirement is satisfied if the firearm facilitated or could
have facilitated the additional felony. United States v.
Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing USSG § 2K2.1
cmt. n.14(A)). The district court’s factual findings concerning
sentencing factors need only be supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 570 (4th
Cir. 2009).
The district court properly concluded that the
evidence was more than adequate to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that Revels was involved in the separate crime
of armed robbery. The victim, who was robbed at gunpoint,
provided a description to police that was generally consistent
with Revels’ appearance, and later identified a photograph of
Revels as his assailant. Further, police found Revels the next
morning within several blocks of the scene of robbery, driving a
vehicle that matched the description of the car in which the
assailant fled. Because the district court’s findings were not
clearly erroneous, the four-level enhancement was properly
assessed.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Revels, in writing, of the right to
3
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Revels 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 Revels.
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
4