UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4594
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK ANTONIO MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00051-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 12, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Antonio Mitchell pled guilty to one count of
distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006). In the presentence investigation
report (“PSR”), Mitchell was found to have obstructed justice
because he absconded from pretrial supervision and was hiding
from law enforcement until he was found and arrested three years
after his initial arrest. Because he absconded and was found to
have obstructed justice, he was not given credit for acceptance
of responsibility. Over Mitchell’s objections, the sentencing
court agreed with the PSR’s recommendation. We affirm.
Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides
for a two-level decrease to a defendant’s offense level if the
defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for
his offense. Under USSG § 3E1.1(b), a defendant who qualifies
for a decrease under USSG § 3E1.1(a) and timely accepts
responsibility may receive an additional one-level reduction on
the Government’s motion. An enhancement for obstruction of
justice, however, “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has
not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct,” except in
“extraordinary cases in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1
and 3E1.1 may apply.” USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4. The defendant
bears the burden of showing that his circumstances are
extraordinary. United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 263
2
(4th Cir. 2001). The district court’s decision to deny a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear
error. United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir.
1999). We find no clear error. See United States v. Miller, 77
F.3d 71, 74-75 (4th Cir. 1996). The cases cited by Mitchell in
support of his argument are clearly distinguishable.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and 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