US v. Terence Ridley, No. 10-5193 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5193 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERENCE C. RIDLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00043-RGD-FBS-1) Submitted: June 10, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., Charles Lustig, SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Cameron M. Rountree, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Terence C. Ridley of possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and he was sentenced by the district court to 115 months imprisonment. On appeal, Ridley contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred in its application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) affirmed Ridley s court s application procedurally § 2K2.1(b)(6) conviction, of we the unreasonable, (2007). concluded the Investigation imprisonment. court s the Report § 2K2.1(b)(6). At and was remanded On remand, the district calculations in the sentenced Ridley to and Counsel application district Guidelines sentence, 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2010) (No. 09-4076). confirmed the we United States v. Ridley, 381 F. App x for further proceedings. court that Sentencing vacated Although once of a again four-level challenges Presentence 110 the enhancement months district under USSG Finding no error, we affirm. sentencing, the district court initially is required to calculate an appropriate advisory Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). court may accept any undisputed portion of The district the presentence report as a finding of fact[,] Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A), and should evaluate the sentencing 2 factors based on the preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2008). court s application of the When reviewing the district Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008). The burden is on the government to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a sentencing enhancement should be applied. See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010). Section 2K2.1(b)(6) provides for a four-level enhancement [i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense. § 2K2.1(b)(6). Another felony offense , for USSG purposes of subsection (b)(6), means any federal, state, or local offense[] . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether conviction obtained. a criminal charge was brought, USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C). or a Moreover, a firearm is used or possessed in connection with another felony offense if it facilitated, facilitating, the offense. or had the potential of Id. cmt. n.14(A); see United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 162-63 (4th Cir. 2009). [I]n the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs, . . . application of [the fourlevel enhancement] is warranted 3 because the presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense . . . . USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B); see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 163. The district court determined that the enhancement was warranted because Ridley was a drug dealer. In making this finding, the court considered the amount of drugs and the cash Ridley possessed. See United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 141 (4th Cir. 2009) (inferring intent to distribute from the quantity of seized ). drugs The involved court also and the amount considered of the relevant fact that cash Ridley likewise possessed loaded weapons and a bulletproof vest and that he was wearing a ski mask on his head. district court found that drug dealers Additionally, the need firearms for protection and that Ridley possessed them in this capacity. Based on these facts, we conclude that it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Ridley was dealing drugs and that the firearms potential to facilitate that activity. he possessed had the Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
