Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4471
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00367-FDW-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
June 5, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Adrian
distribution
Lamonte
of
Shankle
cocaine
pled
base,
in
guilty
to
17
counts
violation
of
21
of
U.S.C.
was
found
guilty
after
jury
trial
of
distribution
of
of
18
U.S.C.
922(g)(1)
(2012)
(count
17).
The
his
Guidelines
range,
arguing
that
the
court
erred
in:
under
USSG
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
for
possession
of
We affirm.
The
States
v.
Slade,
631
F.3d
185,
189
(4th
Cir.
2011)
present,
only
possessed
the
Government
during
the
need
show
relevant
that
illegal
the
drug
weapon
was
activity.
United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001).
The
defendant
bears
the
burden
of
showing
that
connection
641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion to file
pro se supplemental brief because defendant was represented by
counsel).
clearly
improbable.
Slade,
631
F.3d
at
189
(internal
that
courts
Shankle
has
application
not
of
met
the
this
burden.
2-level
The
district
enhancement
under
At
the
connection
distribution
was
continues
on
appeal.
argument
that
enhancement
between
clearly
the
based
We
its
firearm
improbable,
also
district
on
the
reject
court
and
as
his
this
meritless
erred
consideration
and
in
of
drug
failing
Shankles
applying
acquitted
the
conduct.
in
United States
calculating
v.
Lawing,
a
703
defendants
F.3d
229,
Guidelines
241
(4th
Cir.
range.
2012).
in
applying
USSG 2D1.1(b)(1).
the
2-level
enhancement
under
standard of review).
Turning
to
Shankles
challenge
to
the
district
courts
level
is
warranted
if
he
clearly
demonstrates
USSG 3E1.1(a).
and
affirmatively
(4th
Cir.
2004)
accepted
personal
responsibility
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
may
consider
whether
the
defendant
has
truthfully
the
criminal
conduct
comprising
counts
16
and
17.
considered
his
admission
to
the
probation
officer
of
with
respect
to
Shankles
challenges
to
the
under
for
USSG
stolen
firearm
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
and
for
the
4-level
possession
of
error,
such
error
was
harmless.
See
United
States
v.
McManus, 734 F.3d 315, 318 (4th Cir. 2013) ([S]entencing error
is subject to harmlessness review.
however,
calculating
did
Shankles
not
rely
Guidelines
on
this
range.
offense
Rather,
The
level
the
in
court
term
enhancements
at
the
under
bottom
USSG
of
that
range.
2K2.1(b)(4)(A),
Without
(6)(B),
the
Shankles
court.
Accordingly,
any
error
in
applying
the
We
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED