UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON TREVARUS WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00273-FL-1)
Submitted: August 7, 2012 Decided: September 6, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Trevarus Woods appeals his 120-month sentence
imposed after convictions on two counts of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),
924 (2006), and one count of possessing a sawed-off shotgun, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841(d), 5871 (2006), pursuant to his
guilty plea. We affirm.
We review application of a sentencing enhancement for
clear error. United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742,
756 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1935 (2012).
Clear error occurs when we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
USSG § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) provides for an enhancement of a
defendant’s offense level under the Guidelines when the offense
of conviction involved between eight and twenty-four firearms.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
applying the enhancement in this case because the Government
provided adequate evidence to support Woods’s involvement with
the requisite number of firearms. We thus find no procedural
error in Woods’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3