United States v. Phillip Cheeks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 99-4338
PHILLIP CHEEKS, a/k/a Charles Osbin
Allen,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 99-4339
PHILLIP CHEEKS, a/k/a Charles Osbin
Allen,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-529, CR-98-1177-JFA)
Submitted: September 30, 1999
Decided: October 14, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
Susan Z. Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Cheeks appeals the sentence imposed on his convictions
entered on his guilty pleas to using a counterfeit access device in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1) (1994), and felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994). On appeal, Cheeks
contends that the district court erred in departing upward from the
sentencing range obtained from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
(1997). Generally, we review a district court's decision to depart for
abuse of discretion. See Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 91
(1996). However, a district court's decision that an encouraged factor
is not adequately accounted for under the applicable guideline is
reviewed de novo. See id. at 95-96, 100; see also United States v.
Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754, 757-58 (4th Cir. 1996). Our review of the
record on appeal reveals that the district court properly decided to
depart as a result of Cheeks' extensive criminal history. See USSG
§ 4A1.3. Furthermore, the district court adequately stated its reasons
for departure from the bench, and did not abuse its discretion in deter-
mining the extent of its departure from the guidelines range. See
United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868 (4th Cir. 1992); United States
v. Cash, 983 F.2d 558 (4th Cir. 1992).
Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision to depart
upward from the guidelines range, we affirm Cheeks' sentence. We
2
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
3