UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS FERRETTI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00024-FPS-JES-2)

Submitted: March 28, 2016 Decided: May 17, 2016 

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elgine McArdle, MCARDLE LAW OFFICES, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States 

Attorney, Jarod J. Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Ferretti appeals the 46-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and 

possess with intent to distribute Oxycodone, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). On appeal, Ferretti 

argues that the district court erred by applying a two-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2014) for possessing a dangerous weapon. We 

affirm.

We review sentences for reasonableness, applying “a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see id. at 51 (discussing 

procedural reasonableness). The Sentencing Guidelines direct a 

district court to increase a defendant’s offense level by two 

levels “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was 

possessed.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The dangerous weapon 

enhancement applies “if the weapon was present, unless it is 

clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the 

offense.” Id. cmt. n.11(A). The defendant bears the burden of 

“show[ing] that a connection between his possession of a firearm 

and his narcotic offense is clearly improbable.” United States 

v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation

marks omitted); United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 629 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (discussing factors courts consider in applying 
3

weapon enhancement). “We review the district court’s legal 

conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” 

United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 380 (4th Cir.)

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 384

(2014). 

Ferretti argues that there is no evidence that he possessed 

the gun on which the enhancement was based for his protection 

during the conspiracy. He relies on the fact that he possessed 

the gun pursuant to a valid concealed carry permit and that he 

did not carry it during a traffic stop in which drugs were 

seized or after he stole money and drugs from his 

coconspirator’s residence. We conclude that the district court 

did not err when it applied the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. 

Ferretti kept the handgun in close proximity to the drugs and 

cash proceeds from the sales, and, thus, the gun was readily 

available should the need arise to use it to protect either the 

drugs or cash. See Manigan, 592 F.3d at 629 (“[F]irearms that 

are readily accessible during drug activities can be deemed as 

possessed in connection there-with.”). Moreover, the fact that 

Ferretti possessed the firearm pursuant to a valid concealed 

carry permit does not mean that he did not also possess the gun 

in connection with the drug conspiracy. See United States v. 

Carlson, 810 F.3d 544, 557 (8th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. 
4

filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 9, 2016) (No. 15-1136); United 

States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838, 847 (11th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED