FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 14 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cr-0 00 26 -WT M-GRS -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HARRY D. PINCKNEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt-App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Harry D . Pin ckne y

ap pe al s h is 75 -m on th sen te nc e, whi chth e d is tri ctco urt im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to b ei ng a fel on inpo ss es si onof afir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). On ap pe al , Pin ckne y co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredinap pl y in g afou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t t o h is off en se lev el pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) be cau se he po ss es se d afir earm inco nn ect io n wi th a fel on y of fen se . Pin ckne y

als o a rg ue s t ha t h is tri al co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce by fail in g t o o bjec t t o the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti onrep ort’s (PS I’s) ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) an d b y

fai li ng to sh ow tha t h is fir earm po ss es si on di d n otm eetth e requi rem en ts foranen hanc em en t u nd er tha t s ect io n. Be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t p la in ly err inap pl y in g t he § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) en ha nc em en t t o P in ckne y ’s off en se le ve l, an d b ecau se we de cl in e to ad dr es s the m eri ts of P in ckne y ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m inth is pro ceed in g, we af firm . I. Pi nc kn ey forth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erred whe n i t ap pl ie d § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) to en hanc e h is sen te nc e; acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. S wa tz ie , 22 8 F .3d12 78 , 12 81 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). To es tabl is h p la in erro r, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atth ere i s “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct [s ] subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . . . . If all th ree c on di ti on s ar e m et , anap pe ll at e co urt m ay

th enex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t on ly if (4 ) th e err or

ser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f

2jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err init s ca lc ul at io n o f Pi nc kn ey ’s se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge . Whe n c al cu la ti ng th e g ui de li ne ran ge for a § 9 22 (g ) fir earm off en se , a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s i f th e d efen da nt“us edor po ss es se d a ny firea rm

or am m un it io n i n c on ne ct io n wi th an ot he r fel on y of fen se . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ). At th e ti m e o f hi s arres t, Pi nc kn ey po ss es se d l es s t ha n a n o un ce o f m ari juan a in ad di ti on to th e fi rearm . Becau se of hi s p rio r drug co nv ic ti on s, h owe ve r, Pin ckne y ’s m ari juan a p os se ss io n was cl as si fie d a s a f

el on y forsen te nc in g p ur

po se s. 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 4( a). Des pi te th is , Pi nc kn ey co nt en ds th athi s fi rearm po ss es si on was n ot“ in co nn ect io n wi th ” h is po ss es si on of m ari

juan a an d t ha t the fou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) sh ou ldno t ap pl y . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n app lying th e en ha nc em en t. “ Inco nn ect io n wi th ” is de fin edby the gu id el in es to m ean th e fir earm “ faci li ta te d, o r ha d the po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g, an ot he r fel on y off en se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 cm

t. n .14 (A). Thu s, the ph ras e “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” d oe s n ot requi re p ro of

th atth e fi rearm

actua ll y faci li ta te d t he ot he r fel on y off en se . Id. In Uni te d Sta tes v. J

ac ks on , 27 6 F .3d12 31 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), we no te d t ha t “ in 3cert ai n c irc um st an ces , m ere p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm canbe en ou gh to ap pl y

a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t” whenth atpo ss es si on oc cu rredco nt em po ran eo us ly w it h an ot he r fel on y . “ Fo r in st an ce, wh ere i t i s re as on ab le to ass um e th ata de fen da nt po ss es se s a f

ire arm , eve n wi th ou t u si ng it , to pre ve ntth e th eftof c ou nt erfe it cu rren cy inhi s p os se ss io n, an en ha nc em en t i s p ro pe rly app li ed .” Id. Bas edon th is co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” la ng ua ge of § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ), th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m itpl ai n e rro r in fin di ng th atth e fir earm at l eas t h adth e p ot en ti al to faci li ta te Pin ckne y ’s m ari juan a p os se ss io n, po ss ib ly to p rev en t the th eftof t he m ari juan a. II. Pi nc kn ey als o c on te nd s t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to (1 ) ob ject t o t he § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) en hanc em en t s etforth inth e PSI a nd(2) est ab li sh th atPin ckne y ’s fire arm

po ss es si on was fo r “ se lf- pr ot ect io n” an d was th eref or e n ot

“ in co nn ect io n wi th ” th e m ari juan a p os se ss io n. “ W e wil l n otge ne ral ly con si de r cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ra is edon di rectap pe al wher e th e di st ric t co urt d idno t en te rta in th e cl ai m no r de ve lo p afactua l re co rd .” Uni te d St at es v. Bender , 29 0 F .3d12 79 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Altho ug h P in ckne y

rai se d t he se two cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n a§ 2 25 5 p et it io n b efo re the di stric t co urt, the di st ric t co urt d idno t 4reac h the m eri ts of t he cla im s b ecau se itgra nt edPin ckne y ’s pet it io n o n o th er

gr ou nd s. Be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t en te rta inPin ckne y ’s cla im s o r de ve lo p a fac tu al reco rd , we wil l n otco ns id er h is cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n t hi s ap pe al . AFFIRMED .

5