United States v. Thompson ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4542
RONNIE DEON THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-36)
Submitted: March 23, 1999
Decided: April 22, 1999
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, L. Patrick
Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Deon Thompson was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas
of manufacturing, passing, and uttering counterfeit Federal Reserve
notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472 (1994). On appeal, he
alleges that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history
score and by enhancing his base offense level based on the quality of
the counterfeit notes. Finding no error, we affirm.
Police in Greensboro, North Carolina, arrested Thompson on state
drug charges. During the ensuing search of his home, police found
evidence suggesting that Thompson was printing counterfeit money.
Thompson admitted to Secret Service agents that he used an ink-jet
color copier to produce over $4900 worth of counterfeit notes.
Thompson further admitted to successfully passing a counterfeit $50
bill at a local video store. Investigators later discovered that twelve
additional counterfeit notes (with identical serial numbers to those
found in Thompson's home) had been passed. Thompson denied pass-
ing these other notes.
Thompson alleges that the district court erred by considering a
1987 conviction in calculating his criminal history score even though
the Government was unable to produce a certified copy of the
conviction.1 We disagree. Thompson bears the burden of showing that
the information in the presentence report is inaccurate; mere objec-
tions are insufficient, and we find that he has failed to meet this bur-
den. See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990).
Moreover, it is well settled that a sentencing court is not restricted to
relying on information which would be admissible at trial, provided
_________________________________________________________________
1 The probation officer testified that he discovered the conviction while
performing a routine search using a computerized database. He further
testified that the "hard copy" of the conviction had been destroyed.
2
it "has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accu-
racy." See USSG § 6A1.3(a), p.s.2 We find that the district courtdid
not abuse its discretion in finding the computerized records reliable,
nor was its decision to apply the 1987 conviction in calculating
Thompson's criminal history score clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Marin-Cuevas, 147 F.3d 889, 894-95 (9th Cir. 1998).
We review the district court's factual finding that the counterfeit
notes were of sufficiently good quality to pass minimal scrutiny for
clear error and find none. See United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 75-
77 (4th Cir. 1996). The district court correctly applied the factors set
forth in Miller and properly enhanced Thompson's base offense level
pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1(b)(2).3
Accordingly, we affirm Thompson's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).
3 Our independent review of the trial exhibits, performed at Thomp-
son's request, also leads us to the conclusion that the counterfeit notes
were of passable quality.
3