United States v. Patrick Crites

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PATRICK CRITES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00038-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2014 Decided: April 15, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Crites pleaded guilty to transmitting a threat
to injure the person of another in interstate commerce, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(a). The district court sentenced
Crites to ten months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals. Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Crites argues that the district court erred
in applying an enhancement under the Guidelines for an official
victim. In reviewing the district court’s calculations under
the Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will “find
clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The Guidelines provide that a district court shall
apply a six-level increase in offense level when the victim of
the offense is a government officer or employee, the offense was
motivated by the victim’s status as an officer or employee of
the government, and the base offense level is derived from
Chapter Two, Part A of the Guidelines. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3A1.2(a), (b) (2013). The
2
commentary to that section provides that the “[G]uideline
applies when specified individuals are victims of the offense
. . . [and] does not apply when the only victim is an
organization, agency, or the government.” USSG § 3A1.2 App.
n.1. Because Crites threatened government employees rather
than the government in general, we conclude that the district
court did not err in applying the enhancement for an official
victim under the Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Polk,
118 F.3d 286, 297-98 (5th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3