UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROMALDO SALAS MENDOZA, a/k/a Jose Cambre Camacho,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00051-CCE-3)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven R. Kiersh, KIERSH LAW OFFICE, Washington, DC, for
Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Romaldo Salas Mendoza appeals his forty-six-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possession of firearms by an illegal
alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (2006).
Mendoza asserts that the district court erred when it calculated
his Guidelines range because he argues that his base offense
level should not have been increased: (1) two levels, pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A)
(2010), because he asserts that the Government did not establish
that his crime involved more than the one firearm recovered from
his bedroom; and (2) four levels, pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)
(2010), because he asserts that the Government did not establish
that he used or possessed a firearm “in connection with another
felony offense[.]” We affirm.
The burden is on the Government to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the district court should
apply a sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Blauvelt,
638 F.3d 281, 293 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 111
(2011). We review the sentence imposed by a district court
under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We nonetheless review
the district court’s factual findings underlying its Guidelines
range calculation for clear error, and its legal conclusions de
2
novo. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336 (4th Cir.
2008). We have reviewed the record and have considered the
parties’ arguments and discern no error in the district court’s
decision to increase Mendoza’s offense level under USSG
§§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), (b)(6).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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