US v. Roger Reid
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00090-FDW-DSC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4472]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ROGER EMANUEL REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:15-cr-00090-FDW-DSC-1)
March 31, 2017
April 11, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Parke Davis, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester,
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Roger Emanuel Reid pled guilty to knowingly and unlawfully
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
He appeals from his
51-month sentence, alleging that the district court erred by
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2015) because he possessed
the firearm at issue in connection with another felony.
We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a
enhancement, we review a district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal determinations de novo.
defendant possessed a firearm in connection with another felony
is a factual question we review for clear error.
v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009).
We will find a
court’s factual findings clearly erroneous only if we are “left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Where there are
Pg: 3 of 3
two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).
admitted that he had been dealing cocaine from the home, which
was equipped with a surveillance camera, for months.
We hold that the district court’s application of
Accordingly, we affirm.
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.
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?