United States v. Kerns , 304 F. App'x 171 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4395
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRY WAYNE KERNS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00018-RJC-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Hitchens, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. HITCHENS, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Wayne Kerns appeals the seventy-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
Kerns’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2005),
for possession of a weapon in connection with another felony
offense. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court erred by
enhancing Kerns’ offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). In
order for the enhancement to apply, “the district court must
find both that a firearm was used (or that the defendant
possessed . . . the firearm expecting that it would be used) and
that such use was in connection with another felony offense.”
United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of
the record convinces us that the district court did not clearly
err in applying the enhancement in USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). See id.
(stating standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
for any meritorious issues for appeal and have found none.
2
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. 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