United States of America v. Bradley Winfield Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY WINFIELD DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Stephanie D. Thacker, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. (1:19-cr-00566-
SDT-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2020 Decided: January 21, 2021
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester III, SHARPLESS MCCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Nicole R.
DuPre, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Winfield Davis appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after he pleaded
guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), 924(a). On
appeal, Davis challenges the district court’s application of the abuse of a position of trust
enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 (2018). We affirm.
We review “the district court’s factual findings that support the enhancement for
abuse of a position of trust” for clear error and the court’s legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Caplinger, 339 F.3d 226, 235 (4th Cir. 2003). Pursuant to USSG § 3B1.3,
a district court should apply a two-level enhancement in offense level if the defendant
abused a position of public or private trust “in a manner that significantly facilitated the
commission or concealment of the offense.” The commentary to that section explains that
a position of public or private trust is characterized by managerial discretion and is subject
to less supervision than employees whose positions do not involve such discretion. USSG
§ 3B1.3 cmt. n.1.
The “central purpose” of the enhancement “is to penalize defendants who take
advantage of a position that provides them with the freedom to commit a difficult-to-detect
wrong.” United States v. Brack, 651 F.3d 388, 393 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “Whether a defendant held a position of trust must be assessed from the
perspective of the victim.” United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 611 (4th Cir. 2010).
Here, because the record adequately reflects that Davis, as a United Parcel Service
supervisor, held a position of trust and used the freedom and discretion afforded by that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
position to facilitate his offense, we discern no error in the court’s application of the abuse
of trust enhancement.
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --