United States v. Hammond

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 02-4483 KARLTON EMMANUEL HAMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-306) Submitted: October 16, 2002 Decided: October 25, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. HAMMOND Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Karlton Emmanuel Hammond pled guilty to one count of posses- sion of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced him to a term of 270 months imprisonment. Hammond appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in finding that he possessed a firearm in connection with a crime of violence pursuant to USSG § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) (2001). Hammond specifically insists that the evi- dence presented at sentencing was insufficient to support a finding that he in fact committed a crime of violence. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the dis- trict court’s finding that Hammond committed felony assault with a deadly weapon on a government official was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir. 1996). Likewise, we reject Hammond’s claim that the district court erred in declining to award him a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 721-22 (4th Cir. 1993). We accordingly affirm Hammond’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED