United States v. Meyers , 68 F. App'x 905 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                 F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JUN 20 2003
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                No. 02-1393
    (D.C. No. 01-CR-128-D)
    v.                                                          (D. Colorado)
    WILLIE VINCENT MYERS,*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
    Before KELLY, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
    appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
    submitted without oral argument.
    Defendant Willie Vincent Myers pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
    *
    The record on appeal indicates the correct spelling of defendant’s name is
    “Myers.” ROA, Vol. 4 at 66.
    **
    This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
    res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders
    and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
    conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    convicted felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), and was sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment of 78 months. Myers appeals his sentence. We exercise jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a) and affirm.
    Myers’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    744 (1967) (permitting counsel who considers an appeal to be wholly frivolous to advise
    the court of that fact, request permission to withdraw, and submit a brief referring to
    portions of the record that arguably support the appeal). Counsel has filed a motion to
    withdraw and, as required, has provided copies of the Anders brief and the motion to
    withdraw to Myers. Myers has not filed a response. Pursuant to our duty under Anders,
    we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no basis for reversing
    Myers’ sentence.
    We find no merit to Myers’ assertion that the district court erred in enhancing his
    sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for use of a firearm in connection with
    another felony. The court found that during an altercation in an automobile with his
    girlfriend on January 29, 2001, Myers fired a gun three or four times at his girlfriend’s
    legs but she avoided injury by pushing away the gun. We have reviewed the sentencing
    transcript and conclude the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
    See United States v. Brown, 
    314 F.3d 1216
    , 1222 (10th Cir. 2003) (discussing standard of
    review for district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions at sentencing). Further,
    because this conduct could have given rise to a felony conviction under Colorado state
    2
    law, we conclude the court properly applied the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement. See
    U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. n.7 (defining “[f]elony offense” under subsection (b)(5) as “any
    offense (federal, state, or local) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
    year, whether or not a criminal charge was brought, or conviction obtained”).
    We also find no merit to Myers’ assertion that the district court erred in enhancing
    his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. It is uncontroverted
    that, following his arrest, Myers sent letters to two key witnesses. After reviewing the
    letters, the court found the intent of the letters was to ask the two witnesses “not to testify
    or to tell the truth.” ROA, Vol. 4 at 78. The court also found that Myers broke one of the
    witness’ car windows. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court’s
    factual findings are supported by the evidence and that the court properly applied the
    enhancement for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4 (listing
    threatening of witness as example of obstructive conduct); see also United States v.
    Heckard, 
    238 F.3d 1222
    , 1232-33 (10th Cir. 2001) (affirming application of § 3C1.1
    where defendant unlawfully attempted to influence a witness).
    AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Circuit Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1393

Citation Numbers: 68 F. App'x 905

Filed Date: 6/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021