US v. Ricky Maritique Rodger, No. 10-4726 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICKY MARITIQUE RODGERS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00884-GRA-1) Submitted: January 4, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Craig, CRAIG LAW FIRM, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Maritique Rodgers was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006) (Count One), possession with intent to distribute § 841(a)(1), marijuana, (b)(1)(D) (2006) in violation (Count Two), of 18 U.S.C. possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (Count Three), and possession of counterfeit U.S. currency, 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2006) (Count Four). in violation of Rodgers pleaded guilty to Counts One and Two, and the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. months The district court sentenced Rodgers to 110 imprisonment. Rodgers noted a timely appeal. We affirm. First, Rodgers argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him as a career offender. that the career U.S. offender convictions, but Sentencing provision he argues Guidelines is Manual applicable that the Rodgers concedes ( USSG ) based district on court his (2009) prior erred in failing to depart downward because application of the provision overstates his criminal history. See USSG §§ 4B1.1, 4A1.3(b). We lack the authority to review a sentencing court s decision not to depart downward unless understand its authority to do so. 2 the court failed to United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). this exception applies. Rodgers has not alleged that Moreover, nothing in the record indicates the district court failed to understand its authority. On the contrary, Rodgers trial counsel reminded the district court that it had discretion to depart downward. Therefore, this claim entitles Rodgers to no relief. Next, when it Rodgers applied a argues that four-level the offense district level court erred enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony, pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). We review the factual findings underpinning application of a sentence enhancement for clear error. States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). to support the USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6) firearm United In order enhancement, the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the weapon offense. was possessed United States in connection v. Manigan, with 592 another F.3d 621, felony 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010); see USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). We find that the district court did not clearly err when it determined that the firearms recovered from Rodgers bedroom were recovered connected with another felony offense. Police two handguns in close proximity to marijuana packaged for distribution. They also recovered digital scales, white powder residue, razor blades, baggies, and rolling papers in the residence. The Government was 3 entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, including the type of firearms involved and their proximity to illicit narcotics, to carry its burden. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 629. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
