UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OWERRIE DAVON BACON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00401-CCE-1)
Submitted: March 3, 2017 Decided: March 24, 2017
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Owerrie Bacon pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). At
sentencing, the district court, upon finding that Bacon reached
for a firearm when an officer tried to arrest him, applied a four-
level enhancement to Bacon’s offense level. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2015). Bacon’s sole argument
on appeal is that the district court committed clear error when it
determined that Bacon reached for the firearm. We affirm.
We review findings of fact for clear error. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). In applying the clear
error standard, “we . . . will not reverse a lower court’s finding
of fact simply because we would have decided the case differently.
Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether, on the entire evidence,
it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed
the evidence and are not firmly convinced that the district court
clearly erred in finding Bacon reached for the firearm.
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
2