UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4935

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRACEY JERMONT BRITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (2:14-cr-00002-FL-1)

Submitted: June 8, 2015 Decided: July 22, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opinion 

in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Harris joined.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Robert E. Waters, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC 

DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. 

Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:

Tracey Brite appeals his 87-month sentence for felony 

possession of a firearm. He argues that because the record does 

not support the finding that he “used or possessed” a firearm “in 

connection with another felony offense,” U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the district court erred by applying a fourlevel sentencing enhancement. We find this argument unavailing, 

and consequently affirm Brite’s sentence. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the material before this court and argument will not 

aid the decisional process.

In June 2011, confidential informants began reporting to 

officers of the Pasquotank County Sheriff’s Office (“PCSO”) that 

Brite was storing and distributing drugs from his home in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina. On September 26, 2011, officers of the PCSO 

and the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”) detained two 

suspects and seized over one kilogram of cocaine. One of the 

suspects advised the officers that they purchased the cocaine from 

Brite. That same day, officers conducted a “knock and talk” at 

Brite’s home, during which, officers reported, Brite admitted to 

storing and distributing drugs. The officers searched the house 

and found a loaded .357 caliber revolver, two digital scales, a 

glass measuring container, and two bottles of creatine 

monohydrate--a bodybuilding powder the government contends Brite 
3

used to cut cocaine for sale. One of the scales and the glass 

measuring container later tested positive for cocaine residue; the 

revolver was not tested. 

Despite Brite’s admissions and the evidence gathered from his 

house, the officers who searched his house did not arrest or charge 

him. Instead, according to officer reports, Brite agreed to 

cooperate, and the officers let him go with instructions on how to 

contact them. However, when the officers returned to Brite’s 

residence several days later, they discovered that he had moved to 

Maryland. 

By May 20, 2014, Brite returned to Elizabeth City and was 

arrested for felony possession of the revolver recovered in the 

September 26, 2011 search of his house. According to reports of 

the arresting officers and testimony from a special agent with the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) who interviewed 

Brite, after his arrest, Brite again admitted that he sold drugs,

describing himself as a “small-time dealer.” J.A. 52. A U.S. 

Probation Officer prepared a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), which 

calculated a total offense level of 25, including a four-level 

enhancement for “possess[ing a] firearm and ammunition in 

connection with another felony, that offense being the Unlawful 

Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance.” J.A.

88 (citing U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)). The PSR calculated a 

Sentencing Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. 
4

Brite objected to all references in the PSR that he ever 

distributed or admitted to distributing controlled substances and 

to all references to any cooperation agreement. At his detention

hearing, Brite admitted to possessing the revolver as a convicted 

felon, stating that he needed it “for protection,” though he denied 

that it had any connection to drug trafficking activity. J.A. 50-

51. Relying on Brite’s statement that he needed the revolver “for 

protection,” his self-description as a “drug dealer,” his use of 

the creatine powder as a cutting agent, and the cocaine residue 

recovered from his house, the district court concluded that Brite 

distributed drugs and that the revolver was connected to those 

activities. Accordingly, the court applied a four-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and imposed a sentence 

of 87 months. Brite timely appealed. 

On appeal, Brite contends that evidence of cocaine residue 

near a firearm alone is insufficient to support a four-level 

enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with felony 

distribution of cocaine. We conclude that the district court did 

not clearly err in its findings and affirm Brite’s sentence. 

We review the factual findings underlying a district court’s 

sentencing decision for clear error. United States v. Manigan, 

592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010). Under the clearly erroneous

standard, “[i]f the district court's account of the evidence is 

plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court 
5

of appeals may not reverse.” Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of 

Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 318 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. City 

of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)). “The burden is on 

the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the sentencing enhancement should be applied.” United States v. 

Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 2013). While the mere 

possession of a firearm while involved in distributing drugs is 

not sufficient to support an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), evidence that the firearm was used to protect 

the drugs or that it “emboldened” the defendant will support the 

enhancement. United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 162-63 (4th 

Cir. 2009).

Here, Brite’s description of the evidence is misleading. The 

district court relied on more than the cocaine residue recovered 

from Brite’s house--though it did note that the residue was 

“compelling.” J.A. 61. While Brite contests other elements of 

the record on which the district court relied--such as his 

purported self-description as a “drug dealer” and his use of the 

creatine powder as a cutting agent--a reasonable factfinder, fully 

crediting police and ATF testimony for the government, could find 

that Brite distributed cocaine. Similarly, given Brite’s 

statement that he used the revolver “for protection,” a reasonable 

factfinder could find that the revolver emboldened Brite or that 

he used it to protect his stock of drugs for sale. Even if we 
6

held the evidence here to be sufficient to support the opposite 

conclusions--an analysis we need not and do not undertake--

“[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the 

factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”

Belk, 269 F.3d at 318 (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574).

For the foregoing reasons, the sentencing order of the 

district court is

AFFIRMED.