Court Opinion

ID: 9900064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 21:00:31.802767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.109292
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4200      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4200

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        AVONTE WARREN EVANS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00216-CCE-1)

        Submitted: April 27, 2023                                   Decided: November 17, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Christopher R. Clifton, Michael A. Grace, Greer B. Taylor, GRACE,
        TISDALE & CLIFTON, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
        Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Special Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem,
        North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4200      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Avonte Warren Evans pled guilty to possessing a firearm after having been

        convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court

        sentenced him to 90 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Evans argues that the district court

        erred in calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a four-level

        enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018). He

        contends that the presentence report contained allegations that were not part of the same

        course of conduct as the offense of conviction and that the evidence was insufficient to link

        his firearm possession to a drug trafficking offense. We affirm.

               Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a four-level sentencing enhancement if the

        defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony

        offense.” See United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553, 569 (4th Cir. 2022). The

        Guidelines define “another felony offense” as “any federal, state, or local

        offense, . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of

        whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” USSG § 2K2.1, cmt.

        n.14(C).

               Section 3D1.2(d) of the Guidelines provides that “[a]ll counts involving

        substantially the same harm shall be grouped together.” Counts involve substantially the

        same harm “if the offense behavior is ongoing or continuous in nature and the offense

        guideline is written to cover such behavior,” such as offenses covered by USSG 2K2.1.

        USSG § 3D1.2(d). With respect to offenses for which USSG § 3D1.2(d) would require

        grouping, relevant conduct includes acts “that were part of the same course of conduct or

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4200      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/17/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.”             USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2); see

        McDonald, 28 F.4th at 563. To determine if acts are part of the same course of conduct,

        courts examine the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetition) of the

        offenses, and the time interval between the offenses. USSG § 1B1.3, cmt. n.5(B)(ii);

        McDonald, 28 F.4th at 564.

               Upon examination of these factors, we conclude that the district court did not err by

        finding that Evans’ December 2019 constructive possession of a firearm was relevant

        conduct to his April 2020 offense of conviction because it was part of the same course of

        conduct. We further conclude that the district court therefore did not err in applying the

        four-level sentencing enhancement based on Evans’ use or possession of a firearm “in

        connection with” another felony offense based on the December 2019 incident.

        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

                                                     3