Filed: Mar. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4490 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MATTHEW ALWAN SHELTON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00335-BO-1) Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4490 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MATTHEW ALWAN SHELTON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00335-BO-1) Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW ALWAN SHELTON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00335-BO-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Alwan Shelton pled guilty to manufacturing
counterfeit currency, 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2006) (Count 1);
possession of counterfeit currency, 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2006)
(Count 2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count 3), and was sentenced to a term
of fifty-seven months imprisonment. Shelton appeals his
sentence, contending that the district court erred in making a
4-level increase for use of the firearm in connection with
another felony, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)
(2007). We affirm.
Shelton was arrested in September 2007 after a stolen
car was traced to him. He consented to a search of the motel
room where he and his girlfriend were staying. The search
yielded two loaded handguns, a digital scale, thirteen grams of
marijuana, plastic baggies, and one dose of Ecstasy. In the
stolen vehicle, police found another digital scale, marijuana
residue, and a counterfeit $100 bill. At Shelton’s former
residence, police found a printer/copier/scanner and evidence of
the counterfeiting of $100 bills. Shelton admitted that he
owned one of the guns and that the other belonged to a friend.
Shelton said he bought the gun for protection in July 2007, the
same month he began manufacturing counterfeit currency. He said
he and a friend known as Banga manufactured about $100,000 worth
2
of counterfeit currency in two months, and gave over $15,000 in
counterfeit currency to William Jefferson. A week earlier,
Jefferson had been arrested after he tried to sell $10,000 in
counterfeit currency to an undercover agent for five ounces of
cocaine. Shelton said the drugs in his possession were for
personal use only, but that he had been planning to use
counterfeit money to buy Ecstasy.
The enhancement applies if a defendant “used or
possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another
felony offense.” Application Note 14(A) to § 2K2.1 states that
subsection (b)(6) applies “if the firearm . . . facilitated, or
had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense
. . . .” * Although the “in connection with” requirement is not
satisfied when the firearm is present merely by accident or
coincidence, United States v. Blount,
337 F.3d 404, 411 (4th
Cir. 2003), facilitation is shown if the gun “was present for
protection or to embolden the actor.” United States v. Lipford,
203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2000) (interpreting § 924(c)). In
the presentence report, the probation officer recommended an
*
Application Note 14(B) further provides that, “in the case
of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in
close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug
paraphernalia[,]” application of subsection (b)(6) “is warranted
because the presence of the firearm has the potential of
facilitating another felony offense . . . .” (emphasis added).
3
enhancement under subsection (b)(6) for possession of a firearm
“in furtherance of the counterfeiting offense and in connection
with the felonious possession of ecstasy.” Shelton argued
unsuccessfully at sentencing that the government had not shown
any connection between the gun and his counterfeiting and that
the presence of the Ecstasy pill in his backpack with the gun
was coincidental because he had all his belongings in the
backpack.
The district court’s determination that a defendant
possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense is
a factual question, United States v. Garnett,
243 F.3d 824, 829
(4th Cir. 2001), and is thus reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Osborne,
514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). In light of Shelton’s admission that he
bought a gun for protection around the time he began
counterfeiting, and that he intended to buy Ecstasy with
counterfeit money, we are satisfied that the court did not
clearly err. As the district court noted, buying drugs with
counterfeit money is an inherently dangerous activity.
Possession of a firearm had the potential to embolden Shelton
and thus facilitated both his counterfeiting activity and his
possession of drugs.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5