US v. Michael Poteat

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00449-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999745373].. [15-4435]

Appeal: 15-4435

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BRIAN POTEAT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00449-WO-1)

Submitted:

January 21, 2016

Decided:

February 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4435

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Brian

Poteat

appeals

from

his

92-month

sentence

entered pursuant to his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges.
On appeal, he challenges the district court’s enhancement of his
Guidelines

range

under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2K2.1(b)(6) (2014), for possession of a firearm in connection
with another felony offense (distribution of marijuana).

We

affirm.
To apply the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement, the Government must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant
possessed or used a gun and that the possession or use was in
connection

with

another

felony

offense.

Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001).

United

States

v.

The “in connection

with” requirement is explained as “facilitat[ing], or ha[ving]
the

potential

of

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)
where

the

facilitating,

cmt.

n.14(A).

presence

coincidental.

of

a

another

It

does

firearm

felony
not

is

offense.”

include

simply

USSG

situations

accidental

or

United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th

Cir. 2000) (analyzing 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012)).
In

Lipford,

we

explained

that

facilitated by a related weapons sale.

a

drug

sale

can

be

Id. at 267. In order to

encourage a “drug seller to take the risks inherent in selling
contraband,”

a

drug

purchaser

“can

often

‘sweeten

the

pot,’

offering to purchase not only drugs, but other illegal goods as
2

Appeal: 15-4435

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

well . . . [w]here that other illegal good is a firearm, [its]
involvement

in

the

drug

transaction

is

not

‘spontaneous'

or

‘co-incidental;’ . . . [it] facilitates the drug transaction.”
Id.
Here, Poteat sold marijuana and a shotgun to an informant
in one transaction.
in

his

case

Poteat contends that, because the informant

purchased

marijuana

from

him

on

two

occasions, there was no need to “sweeten the pot.”
according

to

Poteat,

the

informant

requested

the

earlier
Instead,

firearm

in

order to ensnare Poteat into selling both at the same time.
However,
transaction,

the

evidence

Poteat

sold

undercover informant.

showed

that,

marijuana

and

during
a

a

firearm

single
to

an

In addition, both the marijuana and the

loaded firearm were in the car at the same time on the way to
the transaction.

Moreover, the presence of the firearm at the

drug deal was not accidental or coincidental; instead, it was a
planned exchange.

We find that this evidence adequately linked

the charged firearm to the drug felony and that the district
court did not err in applying the enhancement.

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(e) (2012) (setting forth appellate standards of review
for Guidelines issues).
Accordingly, we affirm Poteat’s sentence.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

3

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 15-4435

Doc: 22

adequately

Filed: 02/01/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4