US v. Maurice Burrell, No. 12-4059 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4059 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MAURICE BURRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00079-H-1) Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Burrell appeals the sixty-four-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Burrell argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2011), when Burrell could not have received a sentence in excess of one year for his underlying conduct. Section Finding no error, we affirm. 2K2.1(b)(6) provides for a four-level enhancement [i]f the defendant . . . used or possessed any firearm or offense. ammunition in connection USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). with another felony Another felony offense , for purposes of subsection (b)(6)(B), means any federal, state, or local offense . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained. In considering Sentencing the district Guidelines, we USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C). court s review factual error and legal conclusions de novo. application findings of for the clear United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, possessed the marijuana district court with intent the determined to that Burrell distribute, conduct amounting to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), which 2 is punishable by more than one year s imprisonment. U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(D) (West Supp. 2012). district court possession did of not a err in its significant We conclude that the determination amount See 21 of because the drug-packaging paraphernalia and an electronic scale supports the finding that Burrell intended to distribute the marijuana. See United States v. Harris, 31 F.3d 153, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728, 730 (4th Cir. 1990). Even assuming, as Burrell contends, that he possessed the marijuana for personal use, his conduct violated 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2006), and the maximum sentence he would have faced, taking into account imprisonment. the district his prior convictions, is three years Thus, on the record before us, we conclude that court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
