United States v. Buzzard , 326 F. App'x 682 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID DEAN BUZZARD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00014-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Dean Buzzard, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to
defraud or commit an offense against the United States, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 371 (2006). He appeals his resulting
sixty-month sentence arguing the district court erred in
imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2007).
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness,
using the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). An adjustment for obstruction of
justice may be made if the government shows by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant “willfully obstructed or
impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration
of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or
sentencing of the instant offense of conviction . . . .” USSG
§ 3C1.1. Application note 4(e) lists attempting to escape from
custody before trial or sentencing as an example of conduct
warranting this enhancement. Id. at comment. (n.4(e)).
Moreover, this court has approved an obstruction of justice
enhancement for attempted escape from custody. United States v.
Melton, 970 F.2d 1328, 1335 (4th Cir. 1992). The district
court’s factual findings in connection with the adjustment are
reviewed for clear error, and its legal determination are
2
reviewed de novo. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th
Cir. 2002).
We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and the
district court’s findings at sentencing, and find no clear error
in the court’s imposition of the enhancement. Accordingly, we
affirm Buzzard’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