United States v. Talbert Gibson , 456 F. App'x 319 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4497
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TALBERT NAPOLEON GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00054-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Talbert Napoleon Gibson appeals the 115-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for Gibson filed a
brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in
applying a four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010).
Counsel states, however, that he has found no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Gibson filed a pro se motion on appeal for
the appointment of new counsel. We deny Gibson’s motion and
affirm the judgment.
Gibson argues that the court erred in finding that he
possessed a firearm in connection with another felony. We
review the application of this enhancement for clear error.
United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). A
firearm is used or possessed “in connection with” another felony
offense if it “facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating,” the offense. USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A); Jenkins,
566 F.3d at 162-63. “[I]n the case of a drug trafficking
offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs,
. . . application of [the four-level enhancement] is warranted
because the presence of the firearm has the potential of
2
facilitating another felony offense . . . .” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt.
n.14(B); Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163.
The Government adduced evidence that Gibson was
involved in a controlled purchase of crack cocaine and that a
subsequent search of Gibson’s residence revealed a marked bill
from the controlled drug transaction, crack cocaine, marijuana,
and a firearm and ammunition approximately ten feet away from
the crack cocaine and marijuana. Based on this evidence, we
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying
a four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Nor do we find a persuasive reason to appoint a replacement
attorney. Accordingly, we deny Gibson’s motion for new
appellate counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Gibson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Gibson 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 Gibson. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4