UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4520
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID FREEMAN NIBERT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00206-ALL)
Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 12, 2007
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Stephanie L. Haines, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Nibert appeals his sentence for transporting a
minor across state lines to engage in sexual activity, a violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
Nibert first argues that the district court erred in its
application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3A1.1
(2005) by not specifying how the victim was particularly vulnerable
to the offense. In reviewing the calculation of the advisory
sentencing guideline range, this court “review[s] the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.” United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th
Cir. 2006). We find that the district court did not clearly err in
its determination of the victim’s unusual vulnerability and
Nibert’s targeting of that vulnerability pursuant to our decision
in United States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190-91 (4th Cir. 1995).
Nibert also argues that the district court clearly erred
in denying him a sentence reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1 (2005). United States v. May, 359
F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). We conclude from the materials
before us on appeal that the district court did not clearly err in
refusing to apply an acceptance of responsibility downward
adjustment.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Nibert’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 -