Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Korlis Ray HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 693 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 16-4718
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Korlis Ray HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Korlis Ray HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4718
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 18, 2017
Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Korlis Ray Harris appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Harris argues that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
"In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the district court's finding that Harris was accountable for his cocon-spirator's possession of a firearm in connection with the offense of conviction: See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.3(a)(l)(B) & cmt. n.3, 2Dl.l(b)(l) (2015).
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED