US v. Frantonio Brunson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00260-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999922300].. [15-4648]

Appeal: 15-4648

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FRANTONIO LEE BRUNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00260-FL-1)

Submitted:

August 19, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

DUNCAN

September 2, 2016

and

AGEE,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Chief Appellate Attorney, Jennifer C. Leisten, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John
Stuart Bruce, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4648

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Frantonio

Lee

Brunson

pled

guilty

to

possession

firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012).
sentenced to 96 months in prison.
his sentence on two grounds.

of

a

He was

Brunson appeals, challenging

We affirm.
I

“[A]ny sentence, within or outside of the Guidelines range,
as a result of a departure or a variance, must be reviewed by
appellate

courts

for

discretion standard.”

reasonableness

pursuant

to

an

abuse

of

United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d

359, 365 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

This review requires consideration of both

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 363.
district

court

correctly

We first decide whether the

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Guidelines range, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, analyzed the arguments presented by the parties,
and

sufficiently

explained

the

selected

sentence.

United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010).
conclude

that

a

sentence

is

free

of

significant

procedural

error, we then consider its substantive reasonableness.
575.

2

If we

Id. at

Appeal: 15-4648

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

II
Brunson first claims that the district court erred when it
enhanced his offense level by four levels because he possessed
the firearm in connection with drug trafficking.
Guideline

provides

for

such

an

enhancement

if

The relevant
the

defendant

“used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another
felony

offense.”

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2014).
In

assessing

the

district

court’s

application

of

the

Guidelines, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2012).

United States v.

We will find clear

error only if, on the entire evidence, “we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A firearm is possessed in connection with another offense
“if the firearm . . . facilitated, or had the potential of
facilitating,
n.14(A).

another

felony

offense.”

USSG

§ 2K2.1

cmt.

“[T]he firearm must have some purpose or effect with

respect to the . . . crime; its presence or involvement cannot
be the result of accident or coincidence.”

United States v.

Hampton, 628 F.3d 654, 663 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

The enhancement applies when the other felony

offense is a “drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is
3

Appeal: 15-4648

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials,
or drug paraphernalia.”
The

district

USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B).

court

did

not

clearly

err

in

finding

that

Brunson used the firearm to facilitate drug trafficking.

The

firearm was found in close proximity to marijuana and baggies,
which are commonly used by drug traffickers to package drugs.
Further, Brunson had over $2000 in cash on his person, and the
cash was in denominations typically used by drug traffickers.
III
Brunson’s Guidelines range was 70-87 months.

The district

court imposed a variant sentence of 96 months primarily because
Brunson’s criminal history score did not adequately reflect the
extent

of

his

district

court

sentence,

it

past

offenses.

imposes
must

an

place

“Regardless

above,
on

the

below,

or

record

of

whether

the

within-Guidelines
an

individualized

assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
United

States

v.

Carter,

564

F.3d

325,

(internal quotation marks omitted).
assessment

need

not

be

elaborate

330

(4th

Cir.

2009)

While the “individualized
or

lengthy,

. . .

it

must

provide a rationale tailored to the particular case . . . and
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.”

Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).
Having

carefully

reviewed

the

sentencing

transcript,

the

presentence investigation report, and the arguments of counsel,
4

Appeal: 15-4648

Doc: 36

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

we conclude that the sentence was reasonable.
the

district

court,

that

Brunson

had

an

We note, as did

extensive

criminal

history, and that many of his past offenses, including multiple
drug offenses, were not included in his criminal history score.
The district court’s explanation for imposing a variant sentence
was sufficient, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the
imposition of the 96-month sentence.
IV
We

therefore

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5