UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SY ARTHUR PERRI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00211-D-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sy Arthur Perri appeals his 108-month sentence after 

his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and 

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Perri 

challenges the district court’s calculation of his advisory 

Guidelines range.* We affirm. 

This court reviews a sentence for procedural and

substantive reasonableness using the abuse-of-discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United 

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In analyzing 

procedural reasonableness, this court must first determine 

whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory 

Guidelines range. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. “The [G]overnment 

bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to establish the 

applicability of [a sentencing] enhancement by the preponderance 

of the evidence.” United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 

(4th Cir. 2001). “We review factual findings for clear error, 

and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Davis, 679 

 * Perri also contends that the “assumed error harmlessness 

inquiry” from United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 

123 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 454 (2011), does not 

apply. Because we conclude that the district court did not 

procedurally err, we need not determine the applicability of 

Savillon-Matute to this case. 
3

F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 

326, 328 (4th Cir. 2008) (defining clear error).

Perri first challenges the application of a crossreference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) (2011), to USSG § 2X1.1(a), which, in turn, 

requires application of the Guidelines provisions relating to 

robbery. See USSG § 2B3.1(a), (b)(2)(B), (b)(4)(A). We 

conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its 

findings of fact and that the factual findings support 

application of the cross-reference because reliable evidence 

demonstrated that Perri used the unlawful firearm in connection 

with a robbery.

Next, Perri argues that the district court should not 

have imposed a four-level enhancement for abduction pursuant to 

USSG § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). The district court found that Perri

forcibly accompanied a victim from one room in a house to 

another room. See USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(A) (defining abducted). 

We conclude that these facts warrant application of the 

enhancement. See United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387-90 

(4th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Perri contests the application of a two-level 

enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight pursuant to 

USSG § 3C1.2. The district court found that Perri attempted to 

flee from arrest and, in the process, “flailed” a firearm. We 
4

conclude that this conduct is sufficient to support the 

enhancement. 

Finding no error in the district court’s calculation 

of Perri’s Guidelines range, we conclude that Perri’s sentence 

is procedurally reasonable. Perri does not contest the 

substantive reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence. 

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