UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY LEE EPPERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CR-05-10)
Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 22, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., PC,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United
States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Lee Epperson pled guilty to one count of making a
false statement to a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 (2000). Epperson was assigned an offense level of fourteen,
criminal history category IV, and sentenced to thirty-three months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Epperson contends his sentence is
unreasonable as the district court improperly accepted the
probation officer’s recommendation to apply U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2J1.3(a) (2004). We affirm.
When reviewing the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error
and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). A
sentence is unreasonable if based on an error in construing or
applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 456-57.
At sentencing, rather than merely accepting the
recommendation of the probation officer, the district court deemed,
and Epperson conceded, that the obstruction of justice enhancement
authorized by USSG § 2J1.2 better reflected Epperson’s conduct.
However, even if the court had applied a perjury enhancement
pursuant to § 2J1.3, Epperson could not establish harm as the
guideline range remained unchanged.* Therefore, we conclude
*
The guideline provision for obstruction of justice, like that
for perjury, has a base offense level of fourteen. See USSG
§§ 2J1.2(a); 2J1.3(a). Likewise, both provisions provide for a
- 2 -
Epperson’s thirty-three month sentence, which was within a properly
calculated guidelines range, is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Epperson’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
three-level increase for substantial interference with the
administration of justice. See USSG §§ 2J1.2(b)(2); 2J1.3(b)(2).
- 3 -