Court Opinion

ID: 999610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:28:13.077107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:17.710843
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 99-4208

DESI LAMONTE MCEACHIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
(CR-92-158)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: August 30, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert B. Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Desi Lamonte McEachin pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l) (1994), and using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1999). McEachin then filed a
motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) challenging his
firearms conviction under the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v.
United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). The district court granted the
motion and ordered a resentencing hearing over McEachin's objec-
tion. On resentencing, the district court enhanced McEachin's sen-
tence for the drug conviction pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). See
U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998). On appeal, McEachin
challenges the district court's jurisdiction to resentence him and the
court's application of the sentencing enhancement.

We have held, and McEachin concedes, that a district court has
jurisdiction to resentence a defendant on a surviving drug conviction
after he has been granted collateral relief from his§ 924(c) conviction
based on Bailey. See United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir.
1997). We decline to revisit this issue and, accordingly, McEachin's
first claim fails.

McEachin also claims that the district court erred in applying a
two-level enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon because there
was insufficient proof that the firearms were connected to the drug
offense. See USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The enhancement "should be
applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that
the weapon was connected with the offense." USSG§ 2D1.1, com-
ment. (n.3). In order to avoid application of the adjustment, the defen-
dant must show that the connection between the drug offense and the
dangerous weapon possession was clearly improbable. See United
States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852-53 (4th Cir. 1997). The proximity

                    2
of drugs to the dangerous weapon is sufficient to warrant the adjust-
ment. Id. at 852. Here, the weapons were found in a closet in
McEachin's bedroom in which officers found 103.7 grams of crack
cocaine. We find this evidence sufficient to support the enhancement
under § 2D1.1(b). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in
imposing a two-level increase in McEachin's sentence. See United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 880 (4th Cir. 1992) (reviewing
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for clear error).

Therefore, we affirm McEachin's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3