United States v. Trevor Huie ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4683
TREVOR HUIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
David A. Faber, District Judge.
(CR-99-9)
Submitted: January 28, 2000
Decided: March 21, 2000
Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Trevor Huie, a federal inmate, was convicted pursuant to his guilty
plea of assaulting a correctional officer in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1), (b) (1994). On appeal, he alleges that the district court
erred by increasing his base offense level by two levels for more than
minimal planning under USSG § 2A2.2(b)(1). 1 Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
The basic facts of this case are undisputed. Officer Marsh was sit-
ting at his desk on the evening of December 24, 1998. As he stood
up to let a group of prisoners in from the recreation yard, Huie struck
him from behind. Huie continued to strike Officer Marsh repeatedly
with his hands and knees, causing significant injuries.
Huie admitted that he attacked Officer Marsh because he wanted
a disciplinary transfer to another facility. Huie planned the assault for
a time when there would only be one officer on duty and no other
officers nearby. This way, the length of the attack could be prolonged,
thereby increasing Huie's chances of obtaining a transfer. Huie fur-
ther admitted that he communicated his plan to a friend during a tele-
phone conversation earlier in the day. Finally, just prior to the attack,
Huie went to his cell to put a mouthpiece in his mouth and to put on
weightlifting gloves and steel-toed boots.2
We review the district court's determination that Huie's actions
constituted more than minimal planning for clear error and find none.
See United States v. Pearce, 65 F.3d 22, 26 (4th Cir. 1995). As
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).
2 Huie claimed that he put the boots on to keep his feet warm when
officers escorted him across the compound after the assault; not to serve
as a weapon during the attack.
2
applied to the facts of this case, the phrase "more than minimal plan-
ning" is defined as "more planning than is typical for commission of
the offense in a simple form." USSG § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(f)). We
find that this was not a "spur of the moment" assault, as one might
expect following a verbal altercation.3 Rather, the record supports the
district court's conclusion that this was a carefully planned attack.
Huie wore a mouthpiece to protect himself from any blows from
Officer Marsh or other officers coming to his rescue, boots to protect
himself from the cold after the assault, and gloves to protect his hands
and/or to minimize the injuries to Officer Marsh. 4 These actions com-
bined with the information concerning Huie's motive for the assault
and the telephone conversation earlier in the day strongly suggest that
Huie formulated his plan well in advance of its execution. He did not
merely take advantage of an opportunity that presented itself at the
last minute.
Accordingly, we affirm Huie's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
3 See United States v. Foster, 898 F.2d 25, 27 (4th Cir. 1990).
4 There was some disagreement as to the purpose behind the gloves.
3