United States v. Derrick Dingle , 456 F. App'x 321 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK ANTWAN DINGLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00209-FL-2)
Submitted: November 22, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas R. Wilson, GREENE & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, J. Gaston B. Williams,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Antwan Dingle pled guilty, without a written
plea agreement, to possessing a firearm after having been
convicted of a felony and aiding and abetting his father, Bobby
Batts, in the same crime. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1) (2006).
Dingle challenges his sixty-three-month sentence on appeal,
arguing the district court lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis
for his sentencing enhancements. We affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s factual
findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and
the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. United
States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
“find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Finally, we give “great deference” to the district court’s
credibility determinations. United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).
We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented
during the sentencing hearing and conclude the Government bore
its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts
supporting the enhancements for possession of a firearm in
connection with another felony offense and the presence of a
2
vulnerable victim. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§§ 2K2.1(b)(6), 3A1.1(b)(1) (2010). We therefore 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