UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4441
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE O. GRANTHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00037-FPS-JES-1)
Submitted: October 26, 2011 Decided: November 1, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Dwayne O.
Grantham pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a) (2006).
He appeals his fifty-one-month sentence, challenging the
district court’s imposition of a four-level enhancement pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010) for
using an unauthorized firearm in the commission of another
felony. We affirm.
We review Grantham’s sentence using an abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2008). Grantham alleges a procedural sentencing error,
improper calculation of the Guidelines range. Id. The burden
is on the Government to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the district court should apply a sentencing
enhancement. United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 293 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3712 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) (No.
10-1473). When reviewing the district court’s application of
the Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and
questions of law de novo. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277,
281 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279 (2010).
The Guideline in question, § 2K2.1(b)(6), provides for
a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed
any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.”
2
USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). “[T]he purpose of Section 2K2.1(b)(6) [is]
to punish more severely a defendant who commits a separate
felony offense that is rendered more dangerous by the presence
of a firearm.” United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 164 (4th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record and briefs on appeal
convinces us that the district court did not err in finding USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6) applicable to Grantham’s conduct. The district
court’s finding that Grantham possessed counterfeit crack
cocaine with the intent to distribute is not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir.)
(explaining that, in reviewing the district court’s application
of the Sentencing Guidelines, “[t]he district court’s
credibility determinations receive great deference” (internal
quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009).
Therefore, the district court did not err in its imposition of
the four-level enhancement, and the fifty-one-month sentence
imposed is reasonable.
Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3