United States v. Garnett , 304 F. App'x 217 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL TRACY GARNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge (2:07-cr-00146-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark L. French, CRISWELL & FRENCH, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Tracy Garnett pled guilty to possession of a
dangerous weapon in a federal facility, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 930(b) (2006). The district court sentenced Garnett to
thirty months of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year
term of supervised release. Garnett contends on appeal that the
district court clearly erred in denying a reduction in sentence
for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2007). Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.
A district court’s determination as to the defendant’s
acceptance of responsibility is a factual question reviewed for
clear error. United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir.
1999). The burden is on the defendant to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the
adjustment. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234,
1238-39 (4th Cir. 1989). A guilty plea does not automatically
entitle a defendant to a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). A defendant
may not be entitled to a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility if the defendant engages in conduct inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility. Id. In this case, the
district court found by a preponderance of evidence that Garnett
obstructed justice in unsuccessfully attempting to influence his
2
wife to testify falsely and that Garnett gave false testimony at
sentencing in that regard. We find no clear error in the
district court’s conclusion that Garnett’s conduct after he pled
guilty was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
Accordingly, we affirm Garnett’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3