United States v. Chris McCright , 539 F. App'x 179 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRIS R. MCCRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00080-MSD-LRL-1)
Submitted: August 28, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Nandor F.R. Kiss, Kendall A.
Hamilton, Third-Year Law Students, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chris R. McCright pled guilty to unlawful possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006),
and was sentenced to a term of 110 months’ imprisonment.
McCright appeals his sentence, contending that his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court denied him an adjustment
for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2012). We affirm.
McCright was arrested on May 13, 2007, and initially
charged in state court with the firearms offense. At a
preliminary hearing, a witness testified falsely on McCright’s
behalf that the firearm belonged to him, not to McCright. The
state charges against McCright were subsequently dropped.
McCright was later charged with the instant federal offense
based on the same incident, and pled guilty. At sentencing, the
district court determined that McCright had obstructed justice
at his preliminary hearing in state court and denied him a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court found
that McCright’s was not an extraordinary case where both
adjustments could be applied, in part because his guilty plea in
the federal proceeding came one day before his scheduled trial.
See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4.
On appeal, McCright does not dispute that he
obstructed justice, but points out that the obstructive conduct
2
occurred before the federal investigation and prosecution. He
argues that the district court did not consider all the relevant
factors before overruling his objection.
Sentences are reviewed for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Miscalculation of the
Guidelines range is a significant procedural error. Id.However, a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court’s determination that a defendant is
not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2010). A guilty plea generally is an
indication of acceptance of responsibility; however, conduct
that results in an adjustment for obstruction of justice
“ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted
responsibility for his criminal conduct,” although in
“extraordinary cases” both adjustments may apply. USSG § 3E1.1
cmt. n.4. The “question of whether a defendant who obstructed
justice is entitled to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction
[is] largely a factual matter to be determined by the district
court.” Id. at 176.
3
McCright does not dispute that he obstructed justice,
but merely states that the obstructive conduct occurred before
the federal investigation and prosecution and argues that the
district court did not consider all the relevant factors before
overruling his objection.
The law in this Circuit and most others is that an
adjustment for obstruction of justice applies when the
obstructive conduct occurred in a prior state investigation or
prosecution if it is based on the same facts as the later
federal conviction. United States v. Self, 132 F.3d 1039, 1042-
43 (4th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Alexander, 602
F.3d 639, 642-43 (5th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). The
district court evaluated the evidence of McCright’s acceptance
of responsibility and concluded that, because it came late,
rather than early, in his federal prosecution, McCright’s was
not an extraordinary case where both adjustments should be
applied. We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
4