UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4648
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FRANTONIO LEE BRUNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00260-FL-1)
Submitted: August 19, 2016 Decided: September 2, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Chief Appellate Attorney, Jennifer C. Leisten, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John
Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frantonio Lee Brunson pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). He was
sentenced to 96 months in prison. Brunson appeals, challenging
his sentence on two grounds. We affirm.
I
“[A]ny sentence, within or outside of the Guidelines range,
as a result of a departure or a variance, must be reviewed by
appellate courts for reasonableness pursuant to an abuse of
discretion standard.” United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d
359, 365 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 363. We first decide whether the
district court correctly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, analyzed the arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). If we
conclude that a sentence is free of significant procedural
error, we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. at
575.
2
II
Brunson first claims that the district court erred when it
enhanced his offense level by four levels because he possessed
the firearm in connection with drug trafficking. The relevant
Guideline provides for such an enhancement if the defendant
“used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another
felony offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2014).
In assessing the district court’s application of the
Guidelines, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2012). We will find clear
error only if, on the entire evidence, “we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A firearm is possessed in connection with another offense
“if the firearm . . . facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating, another felony offense.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt.
n.14(A). “[T]he firearm must have some purpose or effect with
respect to the . . . crime; its presence or involvement cannot
be the result of accident or coincidence.” United States v.
Hampton, 628 F.3d 654, 663 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The enhancement applies when the other felony
offense is a “drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is
3
found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials,
or drug paraphernalia.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Brunson used the firearm to facilitate drug trafficking. The
firearm was found in close proximity to marijuana and baggies,
which are commonly used by drug traffickers to package drugs.
Further, Brunson had over $2000 in cash on his person, and the
cash was in denominations typically used by drug traffickers.
III
Brunson’s Guidelines range was 70-87 months. The district
court imposed a variant sentence of 96 months primarily because
Brunson’s criminal history score did not adequately reflect the
extent of his past offenses. “Regardless of whether the
district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines
sentence, it must place on the record an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). While the “individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must
provide a rationale tailored to the particular case . . . and
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the sentencing transcript, the
presentence investigation report, and the arguments of counsel,
4
we conclude that the sentence was reasonable. We note, as did
the district court, that Brunson had an extensive criminal
history, and that many of his past offenses, including multiple
drug offenses, were not included in his criminal history score.
The district court’s explanation for imposing a variant sentence
was sufficient, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the
imposition of the 96-month sentence.
IV
We therefore affirm. 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
5