Court Opinion

ID: 9555409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:35.030276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:02.839154
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4610      Doc: 32         Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4610

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LADARRIUS JAVAR BURRIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cr-00209-MOC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: May 17, 2023                                           Decided: August 10, 2023

        Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR.,
        Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Charlotte,
        North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4610      Doc: 32         Filed: 08/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ladarrius Javar Burris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with

        intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and

        possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Burris to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

        Burris argues that the court erred in calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range

        by applying an enhancement for possession of a firearm. We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). First,

        we must determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable. United States v.

        Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). “A sentence based on an improperly calculated

        Guidelines range is procedurally unreasonable.” United States v. Shephard, 892 F.3d 666,

        670 (4th Cir. 2018).     “In assessing whether a district court properly calculated the

        Guidelines range, including its 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. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “Under the clear error standard, we will only reverse if left with the definite and

        firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d

        212, 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a two-level increase in a defendant’s offense

        level “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” in connection with a

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4610      Doc: 32          Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        drug trafficking offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2018). “The

        enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable

        that the weapon was connected with the offense.” Id. cmt. n.11(A). “The government

        bears the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the weapon

        was possessed in connection with the relevant illegal drug activity.” United States v.

        Mondragon, 860 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2017). “If the government carries its burden, the

        sentencing court presumes that the weapon was possessed in connection with the relevant

        drug activity and applies the enhancement, unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by

        showing that such a connection was clearly improbable.” Id. (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly

        err in finding that the relevant firearm was connected to Burris’ drug trafficking activities.

        During execution of a search warrant, police officers recovered a firearm from Burris’

        residence along with drugs and drug paraphernalia. The evidence also demonstrated that

        Burris used the residence to manufacture crack cocaine and that he occasionally sold

        cocaine from the residence. Based on this record we conclude that the district court did

        not clearly err in determining that Burris did not rebut the presumption that the firearm was

        possessed in connection with a drug trafficking activity. See Mondragon, 860 F.3d at 231.

               We therefore affirm the criminal 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

                                                      3