UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4059
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAURICE BURRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00079-H-1)
Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Burrell appeals the sixty-four-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
On appeal, Burrell argues that the district court erred in
applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2011), when Burrell
could not have received a sentence in excess of one year for his
underlying conduct. Finding no error, we affirm.
Section 2K2.1(b)(6) provides for a four-level
enhancement “[i]f the defendant . . . used or possessed any
firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony
offense.” USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). “‘Another felony offense’,
for purposes of subsection (b)(6)(B), means any federal, state,
or local offense . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, regardless of whether a criminal charge was
brought, or a conviction obtained.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C).
“In considering the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear
error and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Mehta,
594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010).
Here, the district court determined that Burrell
possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute, conduct
amounting to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), which
2
is punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment. See 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(D) (West Supp. 2012). We conclude that the
district court did not err in its determination because the
possession of a significant amount of drug-packaging
paraphernalia and an electronic scale supports the finding that
Burrell intended to distribute the marijuana. See United
States v. Harris, 31 F.3d 153, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728, 730 (4th Cir. 1990).
Even assuming, as Burrell contends, that he possessed
the marijuana for personal use, his conduct violated 21 U.S.C.
§ 844(a) (2006), and the maximum sentence he would have faced,
taking into account his prior convictions, is three years’
imprisonment. Thus, on the record before us, we conclude that
the district court did not err in applying the sentencing
enhancement.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3