UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE DODGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-10-REM)
Submitted: September 21, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States
Attorney General, Steven I. Loew, Special Attorney to the United
States Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Dodge appeals his sixty-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to threatening to assault and murder an
Assistant United States Attorney with the intent to retaliate
against her on account of the performance of her official duties,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) (2000). On appeal, the
sole issue raised by Dodge is whether the district court erred in
calculating his guideline range by denying him a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility.* We affirm.
In order to receive a reduction pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3E1.1 (2003), “the
defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has
clearly recognized and affirmatively accepted personal
responsibility for his criminal conduct.” United States v. May,
359 F.3d 683, 693 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Nale,
101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996)). We review a district court’s
decision to grant or deny an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility for clear error. United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d
376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). Based on our review of the record,
including Dodge’s filings and testimony, we find no clear error in
the district court’s finding that Dodge failed to accept
*
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the “district court shall first
calculate (after making the appropriate findings of fact) the range
prescribed by the guidelines.” United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
responsibility for his criminal conduct. See USSG § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.1(a)) (“[A] defendant who falsely denies, or
frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to
be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility.”).
Accordingly, we affirm Dodge’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
- 3 -