UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALFRED WAYNE CASH, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 6:17

- cr - 00333

- BHH

- 1 )

Submitted : December 20, 2021 Decided: January 6, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Leslie T

. Sarji , SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC , Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UN ITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alfred Wayne Cash, Jr. , pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearm s and ammunition , in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in using the

cross - reference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1 (2016), to apply the offense level for attempted murder under USSG § 2A2.1(a)(2). Cash filed a pro se supplemental brief , arguing that his indictment was facially defective. The
Government has declined to file a respons e brief. W e affirm. We review the factual findings underlying a district court’s application of a Guidelines cross

- reference for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Ash ford , 718 F.3d 377, 380 (4th Cir. 2013). A conviction under § 922(g)(1) corresponds to a base offense level of 14. See USSG § 2K2.1(a)(6)(A). However, if the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition cited in the offense of conviction in

co nnection with the commission or attempted commission of another offense,” the cross

r eference in USSG § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) directs the application of the base offense level for the underlying offense, see USSG § 2X1.1 . Section 2A2.1( a)(2 ) provides a base offe nse level of 27 for attempted murder where “the object of the offense would [not] have constituted first degree murder.” After reviewing the record, we discern no error in the district court’s decision to apply the cross

- reference to attempted murder. Se e United
States v. Davis , 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Government has the burden to
prove a cross - referenced offense by a preponderance of the evidence.”).3 In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found

no meritorious issues for appeal. We reviewed Cash’s pro se supplemental brief and we conclude that there was no reversible error related to his arguments. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Cash, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cash requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cash. 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 d ecisional process.
AFFIRMED