UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS MCBRIDE, a/k/a JT, a/k/a Jaemes Thomas McBride,
a/k/a Jim McBride,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00175-AJT-1)
Submitted: November 13, 2015 Decided: November 18, 2015
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, SMITH & ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, William E. Johnston, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Thomas McBride appeals his 42-month sentence
following his convictions for one count of conspiring to produce
false identification documents and causing the impersonation of
diplomats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); one count of
causing the impersonation of a diplomat, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 915, 2 (2012); and four counts of producing false
identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1028(a)(1), 2 (2012). Finding no error, we affirm.
McBride raises only one issue on appeal, arguing that the
district court erred in applying an enhancement for use of an
authentication feature pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii) (2014). When evaluating Guidelines
calculations, we review the district court’s factual findings
for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).
McBride argues that, because the identification cards
issued by Divine Province did not appear to be issued by the
State Department, the sentencing enhancement does not apply. We
reject this argument and conclude that the verification system
used by McBride was designed to mimic the one used to verify
genuine diplomatic immunity cards issued by the State
Department. Further, the false authentication feature produced
by McBride and the accompanying identification cards were
2
designed to appear as if they were issued by “an international
government or quasi-governmental organization.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028(d)(6) (2012) (defining “issuing authority”); see United
States v. Sardariani, 754 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because McBride’s offense involved “the possession or use of any
. . . authentication feature,” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii), we
find no error and uphold the district court’s application of the
enhancement.
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately expressed in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3