US v. Otis Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00008-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999630139].. [14-4750]

Appeal: 14-4750

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OTIS STEFFON JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00008-MOC-1)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 29, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick M. Wright, Jr., WRIGHT LAW FIRM OF CHARLOTTE, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4750

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Otis Steffon Johnson pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by

a

convicted

imprisonment.

felon

and

was

sentenced

to

77

months’

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing
enhancement

under

U.S.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2013).

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

Although notified of his right to do

so, Johnson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Finding

no reversible error, we affirm.
In

assessing

a

challenge

to

the

application

of

the

Guidelines, “we review [the district court’s] legal conclusions
de

novo

and

its

factual

findings

for

clear

error.”

United

States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014) (defining clear
error).

The Guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement if

the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in
connection with another felony offense.”

USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

The enhancement applies where “the firearm . . . facilitated, or
had

the

potential

of

facilitating,

another

felony

offense,”

USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A), and “regardless of whether a criminal
charge

was

brought,

or

a

offense, id. cmt. n.14(C).

conviction

obtained”

for

the

other

The Guidelines further provide that

a firearm is presumed to have the “potential of facilitating
2

Appeal: 14-4750

another

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/29/2015

felony

proximity

to

offense”
drugs,

paraphernalia.”

when

Pg: 3 of 4

the

“firearm

drug-manufacturing

is

found

materials,

in

close

or

drug-

Id. cmt. n.14(B).

Here, the district court found that Johnson possessed or
had control over approximately 94 grams of marijuana and the
bedroom in which the marijuana and firearm were found.

The

record contains sufficient evidence, including the testimony of
two detectives involved in the search, to support the district
court’s findings.

Thus, the court’s factual findings were not

clearly erroneous.

Further, after conducting a de novo review,

we conclude that the district court did not err in applying USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B),

particularly

where

the

facts

adduced

at

sentencing established close proximity between the firearm and
the marijuana.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence.

We

This Court

requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Johnson

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

Court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Johnson.
3

Appeal: 14-4750

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/29/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

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

4