
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezekiel Donja GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4548
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2017
    Decided: June 8, 2017
    
      W. Michael Dowling, BROOKS PIERCE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ezekiel Donja Gardner appeals his 120-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Gardner argues that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for a stolen firearm and possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. He also claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address adequately his arguments at sentencing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a criminal sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings that Gardner possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense and that the firearm was stolen. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), (6)(B) (2013). We also find sufficient the district court’s explanation of Gardner’s within-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the district 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  