United States v. Matthew Buchanan

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

MATTHEW A. BUCHANAN,

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-00501-TSE-1)

Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Todd M. Richman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Ryan K. Dickey, Richard D.
Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Matthew A. Buchanan appeals the eighteen-month

sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to

knowingly, and with intent to defraud, accessing a protected

computer without authorization, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1030(a)(4) (2012). On appeal, he challenges the calculation

of his Sentencing Guidelines range, arguing that the district

court improperly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) (2013).

We affirm.

In reviewing the district court’s application of the

Sentencing Guidelines, we review its legal conclusions de novo

and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). An enhancement

under USSG § 2B1.1 is appropriate “[i]f . . . the defendant was

convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the offense

involved an intent to obtain personal information.” USSG

§ 2B1.1(6)(17(A). The Guidelines commentary defines personal

information as “sensitive or private information involving an

identifiable individual (including such information in the

possession of a third party), including (A) medical records;

(B) wills; (C) diaries; (D) private correspondence, including e-

mail; (E) financial records; (F) photographs of a sensitive or

2
private nature; or (G) similar information.” USSG § 2B1.1 cmt.

n.1.

We conclude that the district court did not err in

finding that the enhancement should apply. The record

established that Buchanan used fraudulent password-reset

requests, password-cracking software, and other methods to take

control of other persons’ YouTube Channels and the videos

contained therein, some of which had been made accessible only

to friends of the persons who had uploaded them. The district

court thus properly found that a preponderance of the evidence

showed Buchanan’s offense involved an intent to obtain personal

information within the meaning of § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A). See United

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010)

(providing standard)

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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