Court Opinion

ID: 9385104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 21:01:03.172019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.045543
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4555      Doc: 43         Filed: 04/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-4555

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JEROME LEPRICE MOBLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00023-MOC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: September 6, 2022                                       Decided: April 4, 2023

        Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Rushing dissents in part.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Joshua B. Carpenter, Appellate
        Chief, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4555      Doc: 43         Filed: 04/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jerome Leprice Mobley appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his

        guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he disputes the district court’s application of a Sentencing

        Guidelines enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony

        offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018). For the reasons

        that follow, we vacate and remand.

               “[A] firearm is possessed ‘in connection with’ another felony offense for purposes

        of the four-level enhancement [in USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)] when that firearm ‘facilitated

        or had the potential of facilitating’ another felony.” United States v. Bolden, 964 F.3d 283,

        287 (4th Cir. 2020) (brackets omitted) (quoting USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A)). Notably, a

        presumption in favor of facilitation applies when (1) the other felony offense is a drug

        trafficking crime, and (2) the firearm and the drugs were found in close proximity to one

        another. Id. (citing USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B)). However, no such presumption applies

        when the other felony offense is simple drug possession; rather, the district court must find

        that the firearm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the defendant’s possession of

        illicit drugs. Id.; see USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A).

               From this record, we cannot discern whether the district court decided that the other

        felony offense was a drug possession crime or a drug trafficking crime. And the lack of

        clarity on this issue is critical because the court did not make an explicit finding as to

        facilitation. So, if the predicate was a drug trafficking offense, then the absence of a

        facilitation finding is immaterial, since the facilitation presumption would apply. But if

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4555       Doc: 43         Filed: 04/04/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        the predicate was a drug possession offense, then the court likely erred in applying the

        enhancement without expressly finding that the firearm facilitated Mobley’s simple

        possession of cocaine.

               Accordingly, we vacate Mobley’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 1 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.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED 2

               1
                 The parties also request that we allow the district court to reconsider the imposition
        of a supervised release condition that the court had imposed pursuant to a standing order
        that has since been amended. The court will now have an opportunity to address this issue
        on remand.
               2
                Judge Rushing would affirm the sentence with the exception of supervised release
        condition #16, which the parties have agreed to vacate and remand.

                                                      3