UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN CLIFTON POWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00197-NCT-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Clifton Powell pled guilty to two counts of
possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to a
within-Guidelines sentence of 137 months’ imprisonment.
Powell’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the district
court’s application of the four-level enhancement in U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010). Powell was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. We affirm.
A firearm is possessed “in connection with” another
felony offense if it “facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating,” the offense. USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A); United
States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 162-63 (4th Cir. 2009). “[I]n
the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is
found in close proximity to drugs, . . . application of [the
four-level enhancement] is warranted because the presence of the
firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense
. . . .” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B); Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163.
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying
the enhancement, see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163 (stating standard
2
of review), and that the within-Guidelines sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and deny
Powell’s motions to substitute counsel and file a second or
successive motion for habeas relief. This court requires that
counsel inform Powell in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Powell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Powell. 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