UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4317
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LESLIE L. DEBOLT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-49)
Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 19, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin L. Neiswonger, LAW OFFICES OF NEISWONGER & WHITE,
Moundsville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston,
United States Attorney, David J. Perri, Assistant United States
Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leslie L. DeBolt was convicted following a jury trial on
one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). He was sentenced to
eighty-seven months in prison.
On appeal, DeBolt first argues that the district court
erred in declining to admit into evidence two documents offered by
defense counsel during the course of the trial. We conclude the
district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit
the exhibits. See United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 926 (4th
Cir. 1997). We further note that any possible error was harmless
in light of the evidence adduced at trial.
DeBolt next asserts that the district court improperly
denied his Batson* challenge to the Government’s strike of the only
African-American juror during jury selection. A district court’s
decision on a Batson challenge is reviewed for clear error.
Jones v. Plaster, 57 F.3d 417, 421 (4th Cir. 1995). Upon review of
the jury selection transcript, we conclude that the district court
did not clearly err in determining that DeBolt did not meet his
burden under Batson of proving racial discrimination in his jury
selection.
Finally, DeBolt argues that the district court should not
have denied him a sentencing reduction under U.S. Sentencing
*
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 89 (1986).
- 2 -
Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(2)(2002). This court reviews challenges to
the factual findings underlying a sentence for clear error, United
States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994), and when those
challenges concern the credibility of a testifying witness, with
due regard to the district court’s opportunity to assess the
witness’ credibility, United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 663
(4th Cir. 1999). Under § 2K2.1(b)(2), a defendant who possessed
all firearms “solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection,
and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use” such
firearms is eligible for an offense level reduction. Based upon
the evidence adduced at trial and at sentencing, we find an
adequate factual basis for the district court’s ruling and find no
clear error.
Accordingly, we affirm DeBolt’s conviction and 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
- 3 -