United States v. Parker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURICE A. PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:01-cr-00338-DKC)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary E. Davis, Christopher M. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Kwame J. Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice A. Parker appeals his sentence. In United
States v. Parker, No. 04-4195, 2006 WL 53819 (4th Cir. Jan. 11,
2006) (unpublished), we affirmed his conviction for possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, but vacated and remanded his
sentence for resentencing in light of the rules announced in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At the resentencing, Parker
objected to a four-level increase to his offense level for having
possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense,
possession of a stolen vehicle. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2001). On appeal, Parker contends the
district court clearly erred in finding his unlawful firearm
possession was in connection to another felony offense. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s findings at sentencing for
clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States v.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir. 1989). Section
2K2.1(b)(5) provides for a four-level enhancement if:
the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition
in connection with another felony offense; or possessed
or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge,
intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or
possessed in connection with another felony offense.
We have noted that “[t]he purpose of this enhancement is to ensure
that a defendant receives more severe punishment if, in addition to
committing a firearms offense within the scope of § 2K2.1, he
- 2 -
commits a separate felony offense that is rendered more dangerous
by the presence of a firearm (or facilitates another person’s
commission of an offense involving a firearm).”* United States v.
Blount, 337 F.3d 404, 406 (4th Cir. 2003). There must be evidence
that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to
the predicate felony and its presence cannot be the result of
accident or coincidence. Id. at 411. The Government can meet its
burden by showing that the gun was present for protection or to
embolden the actor. United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266
(4th Cir. 2000) (analyzing “in relation to” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2000)).
We find the district court did not clearly err in finding
Parker possessed the firearm, found underneath the front seat, in
connection to the stolen car. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
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
*
The “in connection with” is analogous to “in relation to”
contained in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). United States v. Blount,
337 F.3d 404, 411 (4th Cir. 2003).
- 3 -