United States v. Suire

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30727
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLENN PATRICK MIRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-31256
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NEWTON SUIRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 98-30016
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM LYNCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CR-60038-02)
--------------------
December 8, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendants-Appellants Glenn Patrick Mire, Newton Suire and
William Lynch appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy
to possess child pornography and conspiracy to obstruct justice
(Mire), making a false statement before a federal grand jury
(Suire), and subornation of perjury and conspiracy to obstruct
justice (Lynch), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512, 1622,
1612, and 2252(b)(2).
Mire argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying, and in not granting an evidentiary hearing on, his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea. Suire contends that the district
court erred in assessing a three-level increase pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(b)(2) for perjury resulting in substantial
interference with the administration of justice. Lynch asserts
that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
Finally, both Suire and Lynch argue that the district court erred
in imposing, as conditions of supervised release, that Suire
refrain from contact with minors and that Lynch have no contact
with minors other than his own children.
We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the
parties and find that the district court did not abuse its
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
2
discretion in denying Mire’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984);
United States v. Rojas, 898 F.2d 40, 43 (5th Cir. 1990). Mire was
not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. United
States v. Fuller, 769 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1985).
Similarly, because the district court made specific findings
in support of its assessment of a three-level increase to Suire’s
sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3, there was no clear error.
United States v. Harrington, 82 F.3d 83, 83 (5th Cir. 1996).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdicts, Lynch’s convictions were amply supported by the evidence.
United States v. Burns, 162 F.3d 840, 847 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1076 (1999). Finally, the district court did not
commit error, plain or otherwise, by imposing special conditions on
Suire’s and Lynch’s supervised release. United States v. Coenen,
135 F.3d 938, 940 (5th Cir. 1998).
The convictions and sentences of Mire, Suire, and Lynch are,
in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3