UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4633
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES PATILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-03-89)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 24, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Patillo appeals his sixty-month sentence pursuant
to a guilty plea on one count of escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 751(a) (2000). On appeal, he maintains that: (1) the district
court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2000) for obstruction of
justice; and (2) the court’s application of USSG § 3C1.2, reckless
endangerment during flight, and USSG § 2P1.1(b)(1), threat or use of
force against a person during escape, constituted impermissible
double counting. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for
clear error, and its application of the sentencing guidelines is
reviewed de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217
(4th Cir. 1989). The district court determines issues related to
sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v.
Engleman, 916 F.2d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1990).
We have reviewed the briefs and materials submitted in the
joint appendix in light of Patillo’s arguments and find no error in
Patillo’s sentencing. We therefore affirm his sentence based upon
the reasoning stated by the district court at Patillo’s sentencing
hearing. 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
- 2 -