US v. Delwin Pridgen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cr-00024-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999667836].. [14-4846]

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DELWIN PRIDGEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:14-cr-00024-BR-1)

Submitted:

September 15, 2015

Decided:

September 29, 2015

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Delwin

Pridgen

following

his

ammunition

by

§ 922(g)(1)

appeals

guilty
a

plea

convicted

(2012),

and

the
to

96-month

possession

felon,

in

sentence
of

a

violation

possession

of

firearm
of

stolen

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012).

imposed

18

and

U.S.C.

firearms,

in

On appeal, Pridgen

raises three claims of procedural sentencing error.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, applying
a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).

standard.

Gall

v.

United

We must first determine whether

the district court committed significant procedural error, such
as improper calculation of the Guidelines range, insufficient
consideration

of

the

18

U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

(2012)

inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.

factors,

or

United States

v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111-12 (4th Cir. 2015).
When

considering

challenges

to

the

district

court’s

Guidelines calculations, we review factual findings for clear
error and legal conclusions de novo.
F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).
properly

preserved

in

the

United States v. Cox, 744

However, we review arguments not

district

court

for

plain

error.

United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir. 2014); see
Henderson

v.

United

States,

133

S.

Ct.

(identifying elements of plain error test).
2

1121,

1126-27

(2013)

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Pridgen

Filed: 09/29/2015

first

argues

Pg: 3 of 7

that

the

district

court

erred

in

imposing a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2014), for use or possession
of a firearm in connection with another felony offense.

He

argues that the firearms he possessed could not have facilitated
the

North

Carolina

offense

of

felony

breaking

or

entering,

because he did not possess the firearms until after he broke
into

the

victim’s

home.

Pridgen

did

not

challenge

the

enhancement on this basis in the district court, so we review
this claim for plain error.
Guideline

§

See Zayyad, 741 F.3d at 459.

2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

provides

for

a

four-level

enhancement if the defendant “[u]sed or possessed any firearm or
ammunition

in

connection

with

another

felony

offense.”

The

enhancement is designed “to punish more severely a defendant who
commits
dangerous

a

separate
by

the

felony

presence

offense
of

a

that

firearm.”

is

rendered

United

more

States

v.

Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 164 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
A firearm is possessed “in connection with” another offense
“if the firearm or ammunition facilitated, or had the potential
of facilitating, another felony offense.”

USSG § 2K2.1 cmt.

n.14(A).

provide

The

Guidelines

specifically

that

the

enhancement is warranted when a defendant, “during the course of
a burglary, finds and takes a firearm, even if the defendant did
3

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 4 of 7

not engage in any other conduct with that firearm during the
course of the burglary . . . because the presence of the firearm
has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.”
§ 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B).
the

North

Carolina

USSG

Pridgen provides no basis for treating

offense

of

felony

breaking

or

entering

differently than “burglary” under § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B), and we
find no meaningful basis for drawing such a distinction.
Taylor

v.

United

States,

495

U.S.

575,

599

(1990)

See

(defining

generic burglary); United States v. Carr, 592 F.3d 636, 644 (4th
Cir.

2010)

(defining

North

Carolina

felonious

breaking

or

entering); State v. Watkins, 720 S.E.2d 844, 850 (N.C. Ct. App.
2012) (noting felony breaking or entering is lesser included
offense of burglary).

We therefore find no error, plain or

otherwise, in the application of this enhancement to Pridgen.
Pridgen
imposing

a

also

argues

two-level

that

the

enhancement

pursuant to USSG § 3C1.1.

district

for

court

obstruction

of

erred

in

justice,

Under that provision, a two-level

enhancement is assessed when the defendant “willfully obstructed
or

impeded,

administration
prosecution,

or
of
or

attempted
justice

to

with

sentencing

obstruct

respect
of

the

to

or
the

instant

impede,

the

investigation,
offense

of

conviction,” and the obstructive conduct related to the offense
of conviction, relevant conduct, or “a closely related offense.”
USSG § 3C1.1.
4

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Following

his

arrest,

Pg: 5 of 7

Pridgen

placed

several

telephone

calls to his girlfriend, attempting to establish a false alibi
for the underlying break-in, and to convince his girlfriend to
claim ownership of jewelry taken during the break-in and dispose
of additional jewelry of unknown origin.
to

the

investigation

analogous

to

the

of

his

offense

nonexclusive

list

This conduct related
and

of

provided in the Guidelines commentary.

was

substantially

obstructive

conduct

See USSG § 3C1.1 cmt.

n.4(A), (B); see also USSG § 1B1.3 (defining relevant conduct);
USSG § 3C1.1 cmt. n.6 (defining “material”).

Accordingly, we

find no clear error in the district court’s finding that Pridgen
obstructed justice, see United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092,
1095 (4th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), and no error in the
imposition of the enhancement.
Finally, Pridgen argues that the court gave an inadequate
explanation of the sentence imposed, considering only a single
§ 3553(a) factor.

In announcing a sentence, the district court

“must place on the record an individualized assessment based on
the particular facts of the case before it.”

United States v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

This

explanation

need

only

provide

“some

indication” that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors as
they

apply

to

the

defendant

and

considered

arguments raised by the parties at sentencing.
5

any

nonfrivolous

United States v.

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 6 of 7

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006).

The court is

“not required to provide a lengthy explanation or robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” United States v.
Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted), nor “issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion,”
so long as the explanation is adequate to permit “meaningful
appellate review,” United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330,
343 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The

context surrounding a district court’s explanation may imbue it
with enough content for us to evaluate both whether the court
considered

the

§ 3553(a)

factors

and

properly.”

whether

it

did

so

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381.

Although the district court’s explanation was not lengthy
and specifically identified only a single factor—the need to
protect the public from Pridgen’s future crimes, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)—the
sentencing

court

arguments

expressly

and

adopted

demonstrated

the

Government’s

consideration

of

additional sentencing factors as they related to Pridgen.

See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (directing court to consider “the nature
and

circumstances

of

the

offense

and

the

history

and

characteristics of the defendant”); § 3553(a)(2)(A) (directing
court

to

consider

need

“to

promote

respect

for

the

law”).

Viewed in context, we conclude the court’s explanation provided

6

Appeal: 14-4846

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 7 of 7

a reasoned basis for rejecting Pridgen’s arguments in mitigation
and was adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

7