Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio SALAZAR MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-19
Citations: 30 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 01-4622
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio SALAZAR MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio SALAZAR MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4622.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2002.
Decided March 19, 2002.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anné M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Salazar-Mendez pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (1994) and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). For the first time on appeal, he challenges his sentence, contending the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2000) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. Finding no plain error, we affirm.
Because Mendez did not object to the application of the enhancement during sentencing, we review for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find the Government provided sufficient evidence that the firearm transactions facilitated or potentially facilitated the drug transaction. See United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 829 (4th Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error.
Accordingly, we affirm Mendez' sentence. 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.