United States v. Vaughan ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4166
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DONTA TERRY VAUGHAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (1:05-cr-00065-IMK-1)
    Submitted: December 21, 2006               Decided:   December 29, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard T. Brown, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.         Rita R.
    Valdrini, Acting United States Attorney, David E. Godwin, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Donta Terry Vaughan pled guilty to one count of aiding
    and abetting an attempt to provide a prohibited object to an
    inmate, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1791
    (a)(2), 2 (2000).             He was
    sentenced to twenty-one months of imprisonment. On appeal, Vaughan
    argues that the court erred in imposing a two-level obstruction of
    justice enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1
    (2004), and in denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of
    responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1(a), based on the court’s finding that
    he failed to provide truthful information as agreed to in his plea
    agreement.
    This court reviews a district court’s factual findings
    supporting an enhancement for obstruction of justice for clear
    error.   United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 560 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Likewise,    the   district   court’s   decision   to   grant   or   deny   an
    adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear
    error.   United States v. May, 
    359 F.3d 683
    , 688 (4th Cir. 2004).
    In this case, we find that the district court’s findings that
    Vaughan committed perjury in the trial of his co-defendant and that
    he made materially false statements to the court and probation
    officer are supported by the record.         We therefore conclude that
    the district court did not err in enhancing Vaughan’s sentence for
    obstruction of justice.       We further find no error in the court’s
    denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.              “Conduct
    - 2 -
    resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding
    the    Administration       of   Justice)    ordinarily   indicates    that   the
    defendant       has   not   accepted    responsibility     for   his   criminal
    conduct.”       USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); see United States v.
    Murray, 
    65 F.3d 1161
    , 1165 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that finding of
    obstruction supports the denial of acceptance of responsibility
    reduction).
    Accordingly, we affirm Vaughan’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 -