UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIX A. ALMONTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00301-TSE-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory B. English, ENGLISH LAW FIRM, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Stephen M. Campbell, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix Almonte was convicted of conspiracy to possess
and pass counterfeit United States currency and five counts of
possessing and passing such currency. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 472
(2012). He was sentenced to twenty-seven months in prison.
Almonte now appeals, raising two claims. We affirm.
Almonte first contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions because the Government
failed to establish that he knew the bills he possessed and
passed were counterfeit. We will sustain a jury’s verdict “if
there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315
U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Here, there was ample evidence that Almonte knew he
was passing counterfeit bills. He and others accompanied Sandra
Rodriguez when she obtained the bills from suppliers in New York
City. The group then traveled south with her. Rodriguez
determined where they would pass the counterfeit bills. She
distributed the money to Almonte and others and instructed them
to use it to purchase small, expensive items. Almonte was seen
on numerous store videos purchasing such items, often using two
$100 bills, and typically was seen a short time later on other
stores’ videos returning the same items for cash. Rodriguez
testified that she paid conspirators, including Almonte, $100
2
for every $1000 in counterfeit money that they passed. This
evidence is sufficient to establish that Almonte knew the bills
he was passing were counterfeit.
Almonte also objects to the application of a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his perjury at
trial. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2013).
We review the district court’s factual findings regarding an
enhancement for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008).
The § 3C1.1 enhancement applies to perjury. USSG
§ 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(B). The adjustment is not applicable merely
because the defendant testified and subsequently was convicted.
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95 (1993). Rather, the
court must find that the defendant gave false testimony under
oath “concerning a material matter with the willful intent to
provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion,
mistake, or faulty memory.” Id. at 94.
We conclude that the district court correctly applied
the enhancement. At trial, a clerk at a Banana Republic store
in Fairfax County, Virginia, testified that on July 14, 2012,
Almonte entered the store and passed two $100 bills. The clerk
thought the bills felt suspicious, and she took them to her
manager, who was in a back room. Almonte fled the store without
the bills and without the merchandise he was attempting to
3
purchase. Rodriguez testified that, when Almonte returned to
her car, he seemed hurried and said that they had to leave the
area.
Almonte testified that he left the store because he
received a telephone call from Rodriguez, who stated that her
baby had fallen and they needed to leave for New York. Almonte
said that they left for New York that day and that thereafter he
stopped passing currency obtained from Rodriguez because he felt
there was something wrong with the money. On cross-examination,
however, photographs were introduced showing that he, Rodriguez
and coconspirator Diana Vasquez passed counterfeit currency in
Sterling, Virginia, on July 15, 2012.
Given this testimony, the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Almonte lied about this incident.
We conclude that, based on Almonte’s perjury, the § 3C1.1
enhancement was proper.
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4