UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 21, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Grant Prysock appeals from his convictions and 

110-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to 

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession 

of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Appellate 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the 

district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement for 

possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 

(2010). Neither Prysock nor the Government has filed a brief. 

We affirm.

Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a four-level 

enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or 

ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” We 

review the application of this enhancement under the clearly 

erroneous standard of review. United States v. Jenkins, 566 

F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). “[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.” Id. at 164 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).
3

A firearm is used or possessed “in connection with” 

another felony offense if it “facilitated, or had the potential 

of facilitating,” the offense. USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A); see

Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 162-63. “[I]n the case of a drug 

trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close 

proximity to drugs, . . . application of [the four-level 

enhancement] is warranted because the presence of the firearm 

has the potential of facilitating another felony offense. . . .” 

USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B); see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163.

Here, a firearm was found on the same sofa as the 

marijuana. In addition, ammunition for two different types of 

firearms was also found in the apartment. Prysock admitted to 

possession of the firearm and ammunition and possession with 

intent to distribute the marijuana. In addition, the record 

supported the conclusion that guns had been recently discharged 

into Prysock’s apartment in an apparent robbery attempt. In 

light of the physical proximity between the firearm and the 

drugs and the recent violence at the apartment, the district 

court did not clearly err in applying the four-level enhancement 

under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6).*

 See Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163 (noting 

 * We also note that Prysock did not dispute the relationship 

between the ammunition and the drugs or provide any explanation 

as to the ammunition.
4

that a firearm can dangerously embolden the actor to possess 

drugs or provide protection for the drugs).

In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed 

the record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm Prysock’s convictions and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Prysock in writing of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Prysock requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Prysock. 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