UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4912
ETHAN JEROME MOORE, a/k/a Nate,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-99-90)
Submitted: August 29, 2000
Decided: September 12, 2000
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ethan Jerome Moore appeals his conviction entered on his guilty
plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994). Moore was indicted after he broke into his
estranged wife's residence, stole a revolver, and embarked on a vio-
lent spree that left two people with gunshot wounds to the head and
ended only after the arresting officer fired on and wounded Moore a
number of times. On appeal, Moore challenges the district court's
application of the Sentencing Guidelines to his conduct, suggesting
that he lacked the requisite intent to be sentenced using the base
Offense Level for attempted murder. See USSG§ 2A1.2; see also
§ 2K2.1(c). Moore also contends that the district court erred in declin-
ing to grant him a reduction in Offense Level based on his acceptance
of responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1. Finding no merit to either of
Moore's contentions on appeal, we affirm Moore's conviction and
sentence.
The district court's classification of Moore's conduct as attempted
murder is a mixed question of law and fact which is accorded due def-
erence on appeal. See United States v. Bostic , 168 F.3d 718, 724 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1029 (1999). In light of that standard and
Moore's repeated statements that he intended to kill his estranged
wife and her family, we have no difficulty concluding that the district
court did not commit reversible error in adopting the recommendation
of the probation officer and sentencing Moore using the base Offense
Level for attempted murder. Similarly, because "[t]he sentencing
judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of
responsibility," the Guidelines provide that"the determination of the
sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review." USSG
§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.5); see United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267,
1279 (4th Cir. 1995). Affording the district court the proper defer-
ence, we conclude that Moore's unrepentant statements and conduct
2
following his arrest combined with his failure at any juncture to admit
all of the conduct of his offense provided the district court with ample
reason to decline to award Moore a reduction in Offense Level for
acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d
932, 936 (4th Cir. 1990).
Finding no merit to either of Moore's contentions on appeal, we
affirm Moore's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
3
United States v. Moore
Combined Opinion