UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM RANDOLPH UMSTEAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00164-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Randolph Umstead pled guilty to possession of
counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a), 2
(2006). Umstead was sentenced to sixty-five months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Umstead contends that the district
court clearly erred in denying him a two-level sentencing
reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2009). Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s determination regarding
acceptance of responsibility for clear error. United States v.
Hargrove, 478 F.3d 195, 198 (4th Cir. 2007); Elliott v. United
States, 332 F.3d 753, 761 (4th Cir. 2003). A defendant need not
volunteer or admit to relevant conduct to obtain a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, but the reduction is not warranted
when a defendant falsely denies, or frivolously contests
relevant conduct that the court determines to be true. USSG
§ 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(a); Elliott, 332 F.3d at 766 (affirming the
denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility where
defendant falsely denied relevant conduct). Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in denying Umstead an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility.
Accordingly, we affirm Umstead’s conviction and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3