UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAYTON SAMUEL PAUL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00342-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Samuel Paul pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony offense in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2012). The
district court applied a cross-reference pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) (2013) to
the Guideline for kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint,
USSG § 2A4.1, after finding that Paul possessed the firearm in
connection with a kidnapping, abduction or unlawful restraint.
The court imposed a 120-month sentence. Paul’s counsel filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erred by applying the kidnapping cross-reference
under USSG §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a), 2A4.1, to calculate
Paul’s Guidelines range. Paul filed a pro se supplemental
brief, also challenging application of the cross-reference.
Concluding that the district court did not err, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). In determining procedural reasonableness, we
consider whether the district court properly calculated Paul’s
Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. at 49–51. This court reviews
the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
2
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d
381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).
The cross-reference applies “[i]f the defendant used
or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the
commission . . . of another offense.” USSG § 2K2.1(c)(1). Paul
argues that the district court erred in finding that he
possessed the firearm in connection with a kidnapping,
abduction, or unlawful restraint. Faced with conflicting
evidence, the district court found Paul’s evidence incredible,
and found the victim’s testimony credible. We find no clear
error in this determination. See United States v. Harvey, 532
F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (defining clear error). “[W]hen
a district court’s factual finding is based upon assessments of
witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest
degree of appellate deference.” United States v. Thompson, 554
F.3d 450, 452 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the application of
this cross-reference.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Paul’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Paul, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Paul requests that a petition be filed, but
3
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Paul. 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