United States v. Morgan ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 00-4322
    RONALD LEE MORGAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (CR-99-30)
    Submitted: November 28, 2000
    Decided: December 20, 2000
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Jerry W. Kilgore, Christopher R. Nolen, SANDS, ANDERSON,
    MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.
    Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                     UNITED STATES v. MORGAN
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Lee Morgan was convicted by a jury of two counts of mak-
    ing false statements on Mine, Safety, and Health Administration
    forms, 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1001
     (West 2000). The district court imposed
    a sentence of eighteen months imprisonment. Morgan appeals his sen-
    tence, contending that the district court clearly erred in finding that
    his offense involved the conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily
    injury. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1(b)(6)(A)
    (1998). We affirm.
    Beginning in 1978, Morgan worked as an inspector for the Mine,
    Safety, and Health Administration in Virginia (MSHA). One of his
    duties was to perform annual sampling of dust in coal mines over an
    eight-hour period to determine the amount of respirable dust in the air
    in the mine. Coal dust and silica dust in the air in coal mines may
    cause pneumoconiosis (black lung disease) in miners. While mine
    operators are required to conduct dust sampling every two months and
    to send the sampling cassettes to the MSHA lab, the annual MSHA
    samples are necessary to determine independently the dust level in the
    mine at least once a year because mine operators have been known
    to submit falsified dust samples. In 1994, the MSHA district manager
    for Virginia instituted a policy requiring MSHA inspectors to travel
    underground with the sampling units, to remain underground during
    the eight-hour testing period to make sure that the sampling units are
    in the proper places, to move around the area being inspected to
    ensure that a representative sample is properly taken, and to bring the
    units up at the end of the eight-hour period.
    On May 13, 1997, Morgan was scheduled to perform the annual
    dust sampling at Solus Coal Number One mine. Morgan’s official
    inspection notes (MSHA Form 7000-10J) show that he went under-
    ground at 6:30 a.m. and stayed underground until 2:30 p.m., perform-
    ing various checks. He stated on his time and activity sheet (MSHA
    Form 2000-60) that he was underground at the Solus mine for eight
    hours on May 13, 1997. However, Buster Lamie, the mine foreman,
    testified that Morgan did not go underground at 6:30. Instead, Lamie
    said Morgan gave the dust pumps to him and the other miners with
    UNITED STATES v. MORGAN                          3
    instructions as to where to place them. Lamie testified that Morgan
    came underground after 8:00 a.m., spent a few hours underground
    during the morning, and went back up before lunch, telling Lamie to
    collect the dust pumps for him if he did not return. Lamie brought the
    pumps to the surface at the end of the shift. Lamie testified that he
    followed Morgan’s instructions, and that, as far as he knew, the
    pumps were not tampered with, although he had been concerned that
    the dust pumps were not sampled within two hours after they were
    turned on underground, as they should have been.
    In sentencing Morgan, the district court determined that, by failing
    to conduct the dust sampling as he was required to do, Morgan had
    created a reckless risk of serious bodily injury to the miners. The
    court thus enhanced Morgan’s offense level by seven levels pursuant
    to USSG § 2F1.1(b)(6)(A). The district court’s determination that the
    defendant has recklessly created a risk of serious bodily injury is a
    factual determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Tur-
    ner, 
    102 F.3d 1350
    , 1357-58 (4th Cir. 1996) (affirming enhancement
    where mine owners made false statements on MSHA forms certifying
    that miners had received required safety training).*
    Morgan argues on appeal that his actions were not reckless because
    he took steps to insure that the tests were done properly and because
    there was no evidence that any actual risk or injury resulted or that
    the lack of one sampling could cause serious bodily harm. His argu-
    ment is based on the assumption that the miners to whom Morgan
    entrusted the dust pumps placed and operated the pumps exactly as
    he would have done throughout the eight-hour sampling period. But
    MSHA has its own inspector conduct an annual inspection because it
    has not always found mine personnel reliable in such matters in the
    past. Consequently, for Morgan to rely on the miners to conduct the
    sampling, even in part, was to create a risk that the test would be falsi-
    fied or improperly done, and that, as a result, the miners would be
    exposed to unacceptable levels of respirable dust during the following
    year. Because he did not monitor the sampling as he should have
    done, the results were unreliable. Moreover, even if the sampling was
    actually done correctly, Morgan’s conduct created a risk that the tests
    *When Turner was decided, the enhancement was prescribed in USSG
    § 2F1.1(b)(4)(A).
    4                     UNITED STATES v. MORGAN
    would not be done correctly. The risk was recklessly created because
    Morgan was well-informed about the risk, about the reasons for test-
    ing by MSHA inspectors, and about the policy requiring his continu-
    ous presence in the mine to properly conduct the sampling.
    We therefore affirm the 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4322

Filed Date: 12/20/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014