[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 25, 2007
No. 07-11863 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00210-CR-CB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN WESLEY WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(September 25, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Wesley Wilson appeals his 120-month sentence for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). According to the
presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Wilson was arrested for assaulting two
officers, who were attempting to arrest him, by driving with the officers partially in
his car, thereby dragging and injuring them. After the arrest, a firearm was found
in the car’s glove compartment. The district court applied a 4-level increase based
on the specific offense characteristic of possession of a firearm in connection with
another felony, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6), but found that, regardless of
whether the guideline range reflected the enhancement, in consideration of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months was
appropriate.
On appeal, Wilson argues that the four-level enhancement was improperly
applied because: (1) there was no indication that he “went for his gun”; (2) the
firearm was found in the glove compartment several hours after his arrest; and (3)
he fled the car on foot without attempting to reach for the gun.
Upon review of the record, PSI, and sentencing transcript, and upon
consideration of the briefs of the parties, we discern no reversible error.
We review “the district court’s application and interpretation of the
sentencing guidelines under the de novo standard of review, but review[] its
finding of fact for clear error.” United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 693 (11th
2
Cir. 2002). The district court must calculate the guideline range accurately.
United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2006). However,
harmless error review applies to a guideline miscalculation. Id. “A Guidelines
miscalculation is harmless if the district court would have imposed the same
sentence without the error.” Id. Because the district court explicitly found that
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warranted the statutory maximum
sentence, regardless of whether the guideline range reflected the four-level
enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense,
any error it might have committed was harmless.
AFFIRMED
3