USCA4 Appeal: 24-4440 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LAMAR TYRELL COLES, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:23-cr-00096-1)

Submitted: May 27, 2025 Decided: September 12, 2025

Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christopher W. Maidona, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. William S.

Thompson, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4440 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/12/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Lamar Tyrell Coles appeals from his 70-month sentence following conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His only argument on appeal is that the district court improperly applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based on an alleged clearly erroneous conclusion that Coles possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense, namely, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver it. In concluding that the enhancement applied, the district court explained that “the drug quantities, the division of drugs among two baggies, and [Coles’] possession of a digital scale are consistent with drug trafficking activity and support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he possessed the firearm in connection with the felony offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.” J.A. 42.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED