United States v. Feazell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4772
STEWART FEAZELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge.
(CR-96-62)
Submitted: January 31, 1997
Decided: February 13, 1997
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
James W. Keenan, KEENAN & OOTEN, L.C., Fayetteville, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,
Margaret A. Hickey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Stewart Feazell appeals from the sentence imposed by the district
court after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the taking and carry-
ing away personal property of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2,
661 (1994). We affirm.
Feazell asserts that the district court erred in applying United States
Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,§ 3C1.1 (Nov. 1995),
which provides for a two-level enhancement if "the defendant will-
fully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the
administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sen-
tencing of the instant offense." Where the district court's decision to
make an adjustment is primarily a factual determination, this Court
applies the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). During Feazell's sen-
tencing hearing the district court determined that Feazell improperly
circulated his presentence report to incite his friends to commit vio-
lence against potential government witnesses.* We find no clear error
in the district court's determination that this conduct is sufficient to
justify a § 3C1.1 enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Contrary to Appellant's assertion in this appeal, the enhancement was
not based on subornation of perjury. Rather, the court adopted the find-
ings in the presentence report, which included a suggestion that Appel-
lant receive an obstruction of justice enhancement based on inciting
violence against government witnesses.
2