440 F. App'x 219
4th Cir.2011Background
- Maddox pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) without a plea agreement.
- He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
- The sole appellate issue is whether § 2K2.1(b)(6) four‑level enhancement applies because the firearm was in connection with another felony.
- The court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error; the enhancement is allowed by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Maddox admitted the firearm was his; crack was found in close proximity to the firearm at Maddox’s feet, within the driver’s‑side floorboard of the car he drove and fled from during a traffic stop.
- The district court’s finding that the firearm’s presence was not accidental and the enhancement was appropriate was not clearly erroneous, so the judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm was in connection with another felony for § 2K2.1(b)(6). | Maddox contends no connection. | The United States argues proximity and control show connection. | Yes; the enhancement applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of legal conclusions; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2011) (guidelines balancing standard; preponderance evidence for enhancements)
- United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2009) (firearm near drugs may support enhancement; not if mere accident)