UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONAVAN A. BAPTISTE, a/k/a Donovan A. Baptiste,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:11-cr-00347-DCN-1)

Submitted: April 25, 2012 Decided: May 15, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher W. Adams, CHRISTOPHER W. ADAMS LAW OFFICE, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, 

United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donavan A. Baptiste pleaded guilty, without a plea 

agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Baptiste 

appeals the district court’s application of a four offense level 

enhancement for possession of a firearm “in connection with 

another felony offense” in calculating his advisory Guidelines 

sentencing range. We affirm.

We review a sentence under a deferential abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). We first inspect for procedural reasonableness by 

ensuring that the district court committed no significant 

procedural errors such as improperly calculating the Guidelines 

range. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th 

Cir. 2010). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the 

circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The Guidelines require the addition of four offense 

levels if a defendant used or possessed a firearm “in connection 

with another felony offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010). “The government bears the burden of 

proving the facts necessary to establish the applicability of 
3

this enhancement by the preponderance of the evidence, and we 

review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, 

giving due deference to the district court’s application of the 

Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 

824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001). If the defendant presents evidence 

arguably supporting self-defense or another valid defense, “the 

government ha[s] to negate that defense by a preponderance of 

the evidence for the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement to apply.” 

United States v. Raglin, 500 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 2007). In 

assessing a district court’s application of the Guidelines, this 

court reviews legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010).

Here, Baptiste not only illegally possessed a firearm, 

but also pointed it at an occupied vehicle and shot it nine 

times. Baptiste claims that he only did so in self-defense and 

thus did not possess the firearm in connection with another 

felony offense. Baptiste does not challenge the district 

court’s finding that, absent self-defense, he possessed the 

firearm in connection with the South Carolina felonies of 

pointing and presenting a firearm and aggravated assault.

To be eligible for self-defense in South Carolina, 

“the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the 

difficulty.” State v. Slater, 644 S.E.2d 50, 52 (S.C. 2007). 

Self-defense is not available to one who engages in mutual 
4

combat. State v. Graham, 196 S.E.2d 495, 495 (S.C. 1973); 

State v. Porter, 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (S.C. 1977). Relying on 

the facts contained in Baptiste’s written statements to law 

enforcement officers, we find support for the Government’s

contention that Baptiste was not without fault in bringing on 

the situation that led to his use of the firearm. In response 

to his feeling that “something was gonna happen,” Baptiste armed 

himself and leaned against his friend’s car rather than seeking 

to avoid a confrontation. In doing so, Baptiste placed himself 

in a position where an encounter could be expected. See Slater, 

644 S.E.2d at 52; Graham, 196 S.E.2d at 495-96; Porter, 239 

S.E.2d at 643. Thus, the district court did not err in finding 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Baptiste possessed the 

firearm in connection with another felony offense.

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 the 

Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED