UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4447
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RALPH MACK,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville,
North Carolina, Steven Slawinski, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Mack appeals from his conviction and sentence on
a plea of guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). In sentencing Mack to
100 months’ imprisonment, the district court applied a four-
level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”), § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2008), after determining that Mack used
or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony
offense, specifically, possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base. The application of this enhancement is the sole
issue on which Mack appeals. We affirm.
At Mack’s sentencing hearing, the district court heard
evidence from the Government that police officers conducted
three controlled crack cocaine buys from Mack, after a
confidential informant reported that Mack was in the business of
selling crack out of his residence and that Mack had possessed
firearms in the past. Two days following the last of the three
controlled buys, officers executed a search warrant at Mack’s
residence and seized what one officer described as a “very small
amount” of cocaine base, which was found next to the sofa where
a loaded .380 semi-automatic handgun and ammunition was seized.
On appeal, as in the district court, Mack claims the small
amount of crack cocaine was consistent with personal use and not
2
distribution, such that an enhancement pursuant to USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6) was improper.
In considering the legality of Mack’s sentence, this
court reviews “legal questions, including the interpretation of
the guidelines, de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for
clear error.” United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th
Cir. 2006). Here, we find no clear error in the district
court’s finding that the crack was intended for sale, given the
evidence of prior recent crack cocaine sales, the proximity of
the drugs to the loaded firearm, * and the absence of any evidence
of personal narcotics usage by Mack.
Accordingly, we affirm Mack’s conviction and 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
*
See USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B).
3