United States v. Trindell Wilds

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 23-4189
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4189 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4189

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRINDELL BERNARD WILDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00119-CCE-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2025 Decided: June 13, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4189 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Trindell Bernard Wilds pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The

district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised

release. On appeal, Wilds’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning

whether Wilds’s sentence is procedurally reasonable—specifically, whether the district

court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2021) for possession of a firearm in connection with another

felony offense. Although notified of his right to do so, Wilds did not file a pro se

supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a response brief. We ordered

supplemental briefing on the issue raised in the Anders brief. We now affirm the district

court’s judgment.

We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Lewis, 18

F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021). In conducting this review, we must first “evaluate

procedural reasonableness, determining whether the district court committed any

procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider

the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States

v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). “In assessing whether a district court properly

calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4189 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

[we] review[] the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear

error.” United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “Under the clear error standard, we will only reverse if left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d

212, 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the district court’s finding

“is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we will not reverse [it] simply

because we have become convinced that we would have decided the fact differently.”

United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four

levels if the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with

another felony offense; or possessed . . . any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent,

or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony

offense.” The commentary to § 2K2.1 clarifies that subsection (b)(6)(B) applies “if the

firearm or ammunition facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another felony

offense.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A). “This requirement is satisfied if the firearm had

some purpose or effect with respect to the other offense, including if the firearm was

present for protection or to embolden the actor.” United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160,

162 (4th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). “But the requirement is not satisfied if the firearm was

present due to mere accident or coincidence.” Id. at 163 (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The Government bears the burden of proving that a defendant possessed a firearm in

connection with another felony offense.” United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185, 189 (4th

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4189 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/13/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). But “[we have] emphasized that the relevant standard is not

especially burdensome.” United States v. Pettus, 90 F.4th 282, 287 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Wilds’s underlying felonies were felony possession of stolen goods or property (a

bicycle), felony attempt to obtain property by false pretense, and felony possession of a

controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a park. At sentencing, the district court focused

on whether the firearm facilitated the sale of the stolen bicycle. Analyzing the facts

surrounding Wilds’s offense specifically, the court explained that the enhancement was

proper because Wilds was simultaneously committing two crimes and he had the intent to

bring the firearm for protection during his “shady deal”. (J.A. 72). Because Wilds admitted

that he was carrying the gun for protection and he was arrested during an illegal transaction

involving stolen property, it is at least plausible that the firearm had “some purpose or

effect with respect to the underlying crime.” Pettus, 90 F.4th at 287 (internal quotation

marks omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court not err in applying the

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another

felony offense and that Wilds’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Wilds, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wilds requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4189 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/13/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

a copy thereof was served on Wilds. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED