UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN HENRY WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00101)
Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Timothy Porterfield, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
David A. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Henry Walker pled guilty to making false
statements to a financial institution and aiding and abetting
(Counts 1-3); tax evasion and aiding and abetting (Counts 4-8);
and making false statements to federal agents (Count 9). At the
sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Walker’s
objections to the following enhancements: (1) the tax loss
amount of over $400,000, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) §§ 2T1.1(a)(1), 2T4.1(H) (2006), resulting in a base
offense level of 20; (2) a two-level increase for failing to
report more than $10,000 of income from an illegal source, under
USSG § 2T1.1(b)(1); and (3) a two-level increase for abusing a
position of trust, under USSG § 3C1.1. Walker’s resulting total
offense level was twenty-four, which, with a criminal history
category of I, resulted in a sentencing range of 51-63 months of
incarceration. The court imposed a sentence of sixty-three
months of incarceration: sixty-three months each for Counts 1-3,
and sixty months each for Counts 4-9. All sentences were
imposed to run concurrently.
On appeal, Walker again contests the above three
sentencing enhancements. We review Walker’s sentence under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). We find
Walker has alleged no procedural or substantive error in the
2
district court’s sentence. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, we find no
clear error in the district court’s factual findings that the
enhancements were supported by a preponderance of the evidence
presented at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Allen,
446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Walker’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3