United States v. Marvin Maddox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARVIN O’BRIAN MADDOX, a/k/a O’Brian Maddox, a/k/a O’Brien
Maddox, a/k/a O’Brien Marvin Maddox,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00152-PMD-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin O’Brian Maddox pleaded guilty without the
benefit of a plea agreement to possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
He was sentenced to ninety-six months’ imprisonment. The sole
issue presented on appeal is whether, for purposes of a four-
level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010), Maddox’s
possession of a firearm was “in connection with” another felony
offense. We affirm.
In assessing a sentencing court’s application of the
Guidelines, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Mehta,
594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279(2010). A district court may apply a sentencing enhancement if
it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 293 (4th Cir. 2011), petition
for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3712 (U.S. June 6, 2011) (No. 10-
1473).
The Guidelines allow for a four-level increase of a
defendant’s offense level where “the defendant used or possessed
any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony
offense.” USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). A firearm is possessed in
connection with another offense if the firearm “facilitated, or
2
had the potential of facilitating,” the other offense. USSG
§ 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A). “This requirement is satisfied if the
firearm had some purpose or effect with respect to the other
offense, including if the firearm was present for protection or
to embolden the actor.” United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160,
162 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks, citations, and
alterations omitted). The Guidelines provide that “in 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 facilitating another felony offense or
another offense, respectively.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B).
However, “the requirement is not satisfied if the firearm was
present due to mere accident or coincidence.” Jenkins, 566 F.3d
at 163 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Maddox admitted that the firearm was his. The
crack was recovered in close proximity to Maddox’s firearm, at
his feet on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the vehicle
Maddox had been driving and from which he had fled when law
enforcement officers attempted to effect a traffic stop. As the
district court noted, an interpretation of these facts in which
the firearm was not connected to the crack strains credulity.
We therefore conclude that the district court’s finding that the
firearm’s presence was not due to accident or coincidence, and
3
that application of the enhancement was appropriate, was not
clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
4