United States v. John Armstrong ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4511
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ROBERT ARMSTRONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00276-PMD-1)
Submitted: February 27, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Robert Armstrong pled guilty to assault with a
dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) (2006), and
was sentenced to a term of 115 months in prison. Armstrong
appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in
applying a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2011) for use of a dangerous
weapon. We affirm.
Armstrong argues that the enhancement for use of a
dangerous weapon should not apply because he did not intend to
harm the officers but was merely trying to escape. “When
evaluating a challenge to a sentence enhancement, we review the
district court’s factual findings only for clear error, and [i]f
the issue turns primarily on the legal interpretation of the
guidelines, our review is de novo.” United States v. Carter,
601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “The district court’s finding of intent is a factual
finding . . . review[ed] for clear error.” United States v.
Garcia, 34 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1994).
The district court found Armstrong’s statements
regarding his intent to be incredible and determined that
Armstrong had acted with the intent to cause bodily injury to
the officers. Based on the uncontested facts presented in the
presentence investigation report, the district court’s
2
determination of fact was not clearly erroneous, and the
enhancement was properly applied. We therefore affirm the
sentence. 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
3