IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10057
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTT CHRISTOPHER TRAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CR-23-03
--------------------
January 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Scott Christopher Traylor appeals his sentence following a
guilty-plea conviction for: 1) conspiracy to defraud the United
States; 2) uttering a counterfeit security and aiding and abetting;
3) interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle and aiding and
abetting; and 4) uttering a fictitious security with intent to
defraud and aiding and abetting. Traylor argues that the district
court erred in increasing his offense level for obstruction of
justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and in denying him an offense
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
The district court properly based its finding of obstruction
of justice on a combination of Traylor’s actions. See United
States v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1992) (affirming
finding of obstruction of justice based on a combination of the
defendant’s actions). At the time of his first arrest, Traylor
knew that an arrest warrant had been issued for him when he
supplied the false name, under which he had committed other
offenses, and a false driver’s license. At the time of his second
arrest, Traylor previously had been in custody and “felt there was
a mistake with the release,” but proceeded to flee on foot from the
authorities.
“Obstructive conduct can vary widely in nature, degree of
planning, and seriousness,” and “the conduct . . . is not subject
to precise definition.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3). In
light of the record as a whole, the district court’s finding of
obstruction of justice was not clearly erroneous. See Bethley, 973
F.2d at 402; see also United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463,
1466-67 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming finding of obstruction of
justice when defendant had already been arrested and was told he
was a suspect, but played a cat-and-mouse game of avoiding
authorities prior to his final arrest).
Traylor’s assertion that he was entitled to an offense level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility similarly is without
merit. Traylor does not argue, and the record does not indicate,
2
that this is an extraordinary case in which adjustments for both
obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility would be
appropriate. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); see United States
v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3