US v. Derrick Mabry, No. 13-4670 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4670 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERRICK DONNELL MABRY, a/k/a Mayberry, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00275-D-1) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 16, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrick sentence. an Donnell Mabry appeals from his 258-month He asserts that the district court erred in applying enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2012), for possession of a firearm in connection with drug activity. We affirm. The firearms in question were recovered from a storage unit rented by Mabry s co-conspirator. district court erred in applying the Mabry argues that the enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), because there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearms or that the firearms were connected to the drug activity for which he was convicted. In assessing a challenge to the district court s application of the Guidelines, we review the district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 2010). Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines directs a district court to increase a defendant s offense level by two levels [i]f possessed. a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was The enhancement is proper when the weapon at issue was possessed in connection with drug activity that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), even in the 2 absence of proof of precisely concurrent acts, for example, gun in hand while in the act of storing drugs, drugs in hand while in the act of retrieving a gun. 128 F.3d omitted). is 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1997) United States v. Harris, (internal quotation marks [P]roof of constructive possession of the [firearm] sufficient, and the Government is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence to carry its burden. Manigan, 592 F.3d at to 629. The defendant bears the burden show that a connection between his possession of a firearm and his narcotics offense is clearly improbable. Harris, 128 F.3d at 852-53. Without citing any case law, Mabry argues that it is insufficient under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) to show that it was reasonably foreseeable to Mabry that his co-conspirator would possess the firearms. Instead, Mabry avers that it is necessary to show that he himself possessed a weapon in connection with his drug activity. However, Mabry is mistaken. We have held that weapons possessed by a member of a conspiracy are attributable to a co-conspirator when, under the circumstances of the case, it was fair to say that it was reasonably foreseeable to defendant that his co-participant was in possession of a firearm. United States v. Kimberlin, 18 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted) (upholding application of enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b) based on co-conspirator s 3 possession of the firearm). Moreover, dangerous weapon is a co-conspirator s foreseeable when possession their of a collaborative criminal venture includes an exchange of controlled substances for a large amount of cash. United States v. Gomez-Jiminez, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 1623072, at *8 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014). Mabry s admitted conspiracy, his close relationship Given with his co-conspirator, their joint and frequent trips to the storage units, and the large scope of their drug activity, it was fairly inferable that [his] codefendant s possession of [the firearms] [was] foreseeable to [him]. Kimberlin, 18 F.3d at 1160 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, Mabry does not dispute either that his co-conspirator possessed firearms or that the co-conspirator s possession was foreseeable. He does, however, argue that there was no evidence that either he or his co-conspirator used the firearms in any drug transaction or that readily available during a drug transaction. the firearms were Nonetheless, Mabry has failed to present an argument that the connection between the firearms and the drug conspiracy was clearly improbable, and [t]here is nothing in the record weapons were unconnected to the offense. 2014 WL 1623072, at *8-9. to suggest that the See Gomez-Jiminez, Moreover, the record supports the connection: Mabry and his co-conspirator participated in a large scale drug conspiracy; the firearms (assault weapons) were in a 4 storage unit, visited almost daily by Mabry and his co-conspirator; another storage unit, containing ammunition for the firearms, also housed cash, drug paraphernalia, and heroin; finally, three assault weapons were found near two sets of body armor, indicating a offensive capacity and tangible preparation for a defense of themselves and the drug proceeds. find that the court s factual finding that the As such, we weapons were connected to the drug trafficking conspiracy was not error. Accordingly, we affirm Mabry s sentence. 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 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.
