US v. Jeremy McNeair, No. 12-4791 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4791 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY ALONZO MCNEAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00052-WO-1) Submitted: April 29, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy Alonzo McNeair pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted § 922(g)(1) (2006). felon, in the sentencing enhancement of 18 U.S.C. He received a within-Guidelines sentence of seventy-two months imprisonment. that violation court pursuant to On appeal, his sole claim is erred U.S. in imposing Sentencing a four-level Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2011) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with a felony offense. We review discretion standard. (2007). a sentence We affirm. under a deferential abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The Guidelines require the addition of four offense levels if a defendant used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense. USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that McNeair possessed or used a gun and that the possession or use was in connection with another felony offense. Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001). United States v. The in connection with requirement is explained as facilitat[ing], or ha[ving] the potential of facilitating, another felony offense. USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(a); see also United States v. Blount, 337 F.3d 404, 411 (4th Cir. 2003). It does not include situations where the presence of a firearm is simply accidental or coincidental. United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2000). 2 We review the district court s findings of fact for clear error, giving due deference to the application of the Guidelines to the facts. at 828. district court s Garnett, 243 F.3d In assessing a district court s application of the Guidelines, we review legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the record and the parties arguments on appeal with these standards in mind, we conclude that the district court enhancement. district facts not err Accordingly, court. and materials did legal before We in we dispense imposing affirm with oral the four-level judgment argument contentions are adequately this and argument court the of the because the presented would not in the 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.
