UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUINTIS TRAVON SPRUIELL, a/k/a QT,
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-02-256)
Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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 A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Quintis Travon Spruiell pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to falsely make and counterfeit obligations in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2000) and one count of making and counterfeiting
obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2000). He was
sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment and three years’
supervised release on each count, to run concurrently.
On appeal, Spruiell argues the district court erred when it
applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1(b)(2) (2000) to
enhance his sentence. Section 2B5.1(b)(2) provides for an offense
level enhancement for a defendant who manufactured or produced
counterfeit currency or possessed devices or materials used to
counterfeit currency. This guideline, however, “does not apply to
persons who merely photocopy notes or otherwise produce items that
are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted
even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny.” USSG § 2B5.1(b)(2),
comment. (n.4); see United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 76 (4th
Cir. 1996).
We review the district court’s legal determinations de novo
and findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Williams,
253 F.3d 789, 791-92 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the
parties’ briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm Spruiell’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3