UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL F. CALLAWAY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00124-NCT-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul F. Callaway, Jr., was sentenced to thirty-three
months imprisonment pursuant to his guilty plea to four counts of
filing false federal income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7206(1) (2000). He appeals, claiming that the district court
erred in applying a two-level enhancement for abusing a position of
trust under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3B1.3
(2007).
This court reviews de novo a district court’s legal
interpretation of whether a defendant abused a position of trust
under § 3B1.3, and reviews its factual findings for clear error.
United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 535-36 (4th Cir. 2005).
Section 3B1.3 provides for a two-level increase “[i]f the defendant
abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special
skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or
concealment of the offense.” An adjustment under § 3B1.3 is
warranted “if the district court determines that [the defendant]
abused a position of trust and that abuse significantly contributed
to the commission or concealment of the crime.” Ebersole, 411 F.3d
at 536 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Callaway is correct that we require the question of
whether a person occupies a position of trust to be addressed from
the perspective of the victim. See United States v. Moore, 29 F.3d
175, 180 (4th Cir. 1994). However, we have also held that there
2
can be multiple victims of an offense. See United States v.
Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, although the
primary victim of Callaway’s offenses was the United States, his
former employer, for whom he provided accounting services, was also
victimized by Callaway’s conduct.
Accordingly, we affirm Callaway’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