UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4435
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BRIAN POTEAT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00449-WO-1)
Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: February 1, 2016
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brian Poteat appeals from his 92-month sentence
entered pursuant to his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges.
On appeal, he challenges the district court’s enhancement of his
Guidelines range under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(6) (2014), for possession of a firearm in connection
with another felony offense (distribution of marijuana). We
affirm.
To apply the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement, the Government must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant
possessed or used a gun and that the possession or use was in
connection with another felony offense. United States v.
Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001). The “in connection
with” requirement is explained as “facilitat[ing], or ha[ving]
the potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6) cmt. n.14(A). It does not include situations
where the presence of a firearm is simply accidental or
coincidental. United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th
Cir. 2000) (analyzing 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012)).
In Lipford, we explained that a drug sale can be
facilitated by a related weapons sale. Id. at 267. In order to
encourage a “drug seller to take the risks inherent in selling
contraband,” a drug purchaser “can often ‘sweeten the pot,’
offering to purchase not only drugs, but other illegal goods as
2
well . . . [w]here that other illegal good is a firearm, [its]
involvement in the drug transaction is not ‘spontaneous' or
‘co-incidental;’ . . . [it] facilitates the drug transaction.”
Id.
Here, Poteat sold marijuana and a shotgun to an informant
in one transaction. Poteat contends that, because the informant
in his case purchased marijuana from him on two earlier
occasions, there was no need to “sweeten the pot.” Instead,
according to Poteat, the informant requested the firearm in
order to ensnare Poteat into selling both at the same time.
However, the evidence showed that, during a single
transaction, Poteat sold marijuana and a firearm to an
undercover informant. In addition, both the marijuana and the
loaded firearm were in the car at the same time on the way to
the transaction. Moreover, the presence of the firearm at the
drug deal was not accidental or coincidental; instead, it was a
planned exchange. We find that this evidence adequately linked
the charged firearm to the drug felony and that the district
court did not err in applying the enhancement. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(e) (2012) (setting forth appellate standards of review
for Guidelines issues).
Accordingly, we affirm Poteat’s sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4