US v. Owerrie Bacon, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00401-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4440]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
OWERRIE DAVON BACON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00401-CCE-1)
March 3, 2017
March 24, 2017
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Owerrie Bacon pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
sentencing, the district court, upon finding that Bacon reached
for a firearm when an officer tried to arrest him, applied a fourlevel enhancement to Bacon’s offense level.
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2015).
See U.S. Sentencing
Bacon’s sole argument
on appeal is that the district court committed clear error when it
determined that Bacon reached for the firearm.
We review findings of fact for clear error.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
United States v.
In applying the clear
error standard, “we . . . will not reverse a lower court’s finding
of fact simply because we would have decided the case differently.
Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether, on the entire evidence,
it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed
the evidence and are not firmly convinced that the district court
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?