UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONTA TERRY VAUGHAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00065-IMK-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard T. Brown, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rita R.
Valdrini, Acting United States Attorney, David E. Godwin, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donta Terry Vaughan pled guilty to one count of aiding
and abetting an attempt to provide a prohibited object to an
inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2), 2 (2000). He was
sentenced to twenty-one months of imprisonment. On appeal, Vaughan
argues that the court erred in imposing a two-level obstruction of
justice enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1
(2004), and in denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1(a), based on the court’s finding that
he failed to provide truthful information as agreed to in his plea
agreement.
This court reviews a district court’s factual findings
supporting an enhancement for obstruction of justice for clear
error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 560 (4th Cir. 2005).
Likewise, the district court’s decision to grant or deny an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear
error. United States v. May, 359 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004).
In this case, we find that the district court’s findings that
Vaughan committed perjury in the trial of his co-defendant and that
he made materially false statements to the court and probation
officer are supported by the record. We therefore conclude that
the district court did not err in enhancing Vaughan’s sentence for
obstruction of justice. We further find no error in the court’s
denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. “Conduct
- 2 -
resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding
the Administration of Justice) ordinarily indicates that the
defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal
conduct.” USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); see United States v.
Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that finding of
obstruction supports the denial of acceptance of responsibility
reduction).
Accordingly, we affirm Vaughan’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 -