UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL R. REA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:14-cr-00483-RMG-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 4, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Nick
Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael R. Rea pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to manufacturing and possessing with the intent to
distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012). The district court sentenced Rea
to 60 months’ imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence
prescribed by statute for the offense. On appeal, Rea contends
that the district court erred in applying a two-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2014). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). In conducting procedural reasonableness
review, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)[(2012)]
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. We
review the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for
clear error. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 630-31
(4th Cir. 2010).
The Guidelines direct a two-level enhancement “[i]f a
dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” USSG
2
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). In order for the enhancement to apply, “the
Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the weapon was possessed in connection with drug activity that
was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the
offense of conviction.” Manigan, 592 F.3d at 628-29 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[P]roof of constructive possession
of the [firearm] is sufficient, and the Government is entitled
to rely on circumstantial evidence to carry its burden.” Id.
If the Government carries its burden, “[t]he enhancement
should be applied . . . unless it is clearly improbable that the
weapon was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1 cmt.
n.11(A). The defendant bears the burden of establishing such a
clear improbability. United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 189
(4th Cir. 2011).
The district court found, and Rea does not contest, that
the Government satisfied its burden. We conclude that Rea has
not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in
finding that it was not clearly improbable that the firearm was
connected with his criminal activity. The district court relied
on considerations such as the proximity of one of the firearms -
which was loaded - to the drugs and drug proceeds and the
firearm’s accessibility, factors which we have recognized as
relevant to determining whether firearms are connected to
criminal drug offenses. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 629.
3
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4