United States v. Miguel Burt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL LASHAWN BURT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00163-F-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Lashawn Burt pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924
(2012). The district court sentenced him to a within-Guidelines
sentence of 105 months’ imprisonment. Burt appeals, arguing
that the district court erred in applying a two-level
obstruction of justice enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2013). Finding no error, we affirm.
Section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines instructs a district
court to increase a defendant’s offense level by two levels if
“the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to
obstruct or impede, the administration of justice” relating to
the offense of conviction, related conduct, or a closely related
offense. USSG § 3C1.1. Obstructive conduct within the meaning
of § 3C1.1 includes “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise
unlawfully influencing a . . . witness.” Id., cmt. n.4(A).
Whether a defendant obstructed justice under this Guideline is a
factual question reviewed for clear error. United States v.
Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 2004). The Government must
show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
obstructed justice and it may rely on hearsay testimony to meet
its burden of proof. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092,
1095 (4th Cir. 1995).
2
Burt robbed a victim at gunpoint, a crime captured on
a video camera. The victim’s girlfriend reported the crime, but
in doing so falsely stated that she was present at the robbery.
The victim later explained that he did not report the crime
himself because he feared for his life. Both the victim and his
girlfriend told an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (“ATFE”) that Burt threatened to kill
them. When officers tried to contact the victim’s girlfriend in
the weeks following the robbery, several family members reported
that she had left the state because Burt threatened to kill her
and her baby if she cooperated with police. We conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in imposing the
obstruction of justice enhancement. Cf. id. at 1095 (finding no
clear error where court found witness’ claim that defendant
threatened her credible despite her earlier false grand jury
testimony).
Accordingly, we affirm Burt’s sentence. 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
3