United States v. Harris ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-5484
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALBERT HARRIS, a/k/a Junebug,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
    trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-95-10)
    Submitted:   January 11, 1996             Decided:   January 29, 1996
    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A.
    Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Albert Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack
    cocaine, 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 846
     (West Supp. 1995), and received a
    sentence of 87 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the
    district court erred in finding that he had not accepted responsi-
    bility for his offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guide-
    lines Manual, § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1994). Finding no error, we affirm the
    sentence.
    Following his guilty plea, Harris was released on bond. He
    subsequently tested positive on three occasions for cocaine use.
    His bond was revoked. At sentencing, the district court determined
    that Harris's continued criminal conduct was inconsistent with
    acceptance of responsibility. The court's factual finding was not
    clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kidd, 
    12 F.3d 30
    , 34 (4th
    Cir. 1993) (continued criminal conduct may be basis for denial of
    adjustment), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    62 U.S.L.W. 3705
     (U.S.
    Apr. 25, 1994) (No. 93-8489).
    Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the district court is
    affirmed. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-5484

Filed Date: 1/29/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021