UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DWAYNE O. GRANTHAM,

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. (5:10-cr-00037-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: October 26, 2011 Decided: November 1, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West 

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

States Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Dwayne O. 

Grantham pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a) (2006). 

He appeals his fifty-one-month sentence, challenging the 

district court’s imposition of a four-level enhancement pursuant 

to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010) for 

using an unauthorized firearm in the commission of another 

felony. We affirm.

We review Grantham’s sentence using an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2008). Grantham alleges a procedural sentencing error, 

improper calculation of the Guidelines range. Id. The burden 

is on the Government to establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the district court should apply a sentencing 

enhancement. United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 293 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3712 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) (No. 

10-1473). When reviewing the district court’s application of 

the Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and 

questions of law de novo. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 

281 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279 (2010).

The Guideline in question, § 2K2.1(b)(6), provides for 

a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed 

any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.” 
3

USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). “[T]he purpose of Section 2K2.1(b)(6) [is] 

to punish more severely a defendant who commits a separate 

felony offense that is rendered more dangerous by the presence 

of a firearm.” United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 164 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record and briefs on appeal 

convinces us that the district court did not err in finding USSG 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6) applicable to Grantham’s conduct. The district 

court’s finding that Grantham possessed counterfeit crack 

cocaine with the intent to distribute is not clearly erroneous. 

See United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir.) 

(explaining that, in reviewing the district court’s application 

of the Sentencing Guidelines, “[t]he district court’s 

credibility determinations receive great deference” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). 

Therefore, the district court did not err in its imposition of 

the four-level enhancement, and the fifty-one-month sentence 

imposed is reasonable.

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