UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 21, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Grant Prysock appeals from his convictions and
110-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession
of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the
district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement for
possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
(2010). Neither Prysock nor the Government has filed a brief.
We affirm.
Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a four-level
enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or
ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” We
review the application of this enhancement under the clearly
erroneous standard of review. United States v. Jenkins, 566
F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). “[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.” Id. at 164 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
A firearm is used or 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); see
Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 162-63. “[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); see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163.
Here, a firearm was found on the same sofa as the
marijuana. In addition, ammunition for two different types of
firearms was also found in the apartment. Prysock admitted to
possession of the firearm and ammunition and possession with
intent to distribute the marijuana. In addition, the record
supported the conclusion that guns had been recently discharged
into Prysock’s apartment in an apparent robbery attempt. In
light of the physical proximity between the firearm and the
drugs and the recent violence at the apartment, the district
court did not clearly err in applying the four-level enhancement
under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). * See Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163 (noting
*
We also note that Prysock did not dispute the relationship
between the ammunition and the drugs or provide any explanation
as to the ammunition.
3
that a firearm can dangerously embolden the actor to possess
drugs or provide protection for the drugs).
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Prysock’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Prysock in writing of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Prysock requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Prysock. 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
4