United States v. Hall ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER ALLEN HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-12)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David H. Wilmoth, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E.
Johnston, United States Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roger Allen Hall pled guilty to causing a person to make a
false statement in the acquisition of a firearm, a Ruger .22
caliber rifle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (2000), and
was sentenced to a term of 120 months imprisonment. Hall argues on
appeal that the district court erred in finding that he attempted
to obstruct justice during the investigation. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2002). We affirm.
Hall, a convicted felon, asked his son, Troy Hall, to buy a
Ruger rifle for him and gave him the money for the purchase. A
short time later, the rifle and another firearm were seized by
officers from the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) who came to Hall’s residence investigating the illegal taking
of deer. Hall denied owning the Ruger and, after the officers left,
called Troy and told him that, if he were asked about the Ruger, he
should say that the gun was his, and that he had left it at his
father’s house. The DNR officers later contacted the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for assistance. When Troy Hall
was interviewed by ATF agents in December 2001, he first told them
the false story suggested by his father, but then told them the
truth.
Hall contends that the § 3C1.1 adjustment was error in that
his obstructive conduct did not occur during the investigation of
the “instant offense,” as required under USSG § 3C1.1, because the
2
federal investigation had not begun when he told his son to lie
about the Ruger rifle.* However, § 3C1.1 makes no distinction
between a federal and a state investigation of the instant offense.
United States v. Self, 132 F.3d 1039, 1042 (4th Cir. 1997).
Although the state investigation initially focused on game
violations, Hall instructed his son to lie in an attempt to evade
firearms charges. The federal investigation of his conduct simply
continued the work begun by the DNR officers. Moreover, even
though Hall’s son recanted the lie, Hall’s attempt to obstruct the
investigation was enough to warrant the adjustment.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. 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
*
A state firearms charge remained pending against Hall when
he was sentenced for the instant federal offense.
3