UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4894
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WARREN CHRISTOPHER BRADFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cr-00512-AW-1)
Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Adam K. Ake,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Christopher Bradford appeals the sentence of
twelve months and one day imposed following his conviction of
delay and destruction of mail by a postal employee, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1703 (2006). On appeal, Bradford argues that the
district court erred in applying a six-level sentencing
enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (2010). We affirm.
In reviewing a district court’s application of the
Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and
questions of law de novo. United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). In applying a sentencing enhancement,
the district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence
that the conduct underlying the enhancement occurred. See
United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 803 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), if a property
damage or destruction offense involved 250 or more victims, a
six-level enhancement is appropriate. On appeal, Bradford first
argues that the district court erred in utilizing application
note 4(C)(i) to calculate the number of victims involved in the
offense. Application note 4(C)(i) provides:
In a case in which undelivered United States mail was
taken, or the taking of such item was an object of the
offense, or in a case in which the stolen property
received, transported, transferred, transmitted, or
possessed was undelivered United States mail, “victim”
2
means (I) any victim as defined in Application Note 1;
or (II) any person who was the intended recipient, or
addressee, of the undelivered United States mail.
USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i). Bradford contends that, because
application note 4(C)(i) uses the word “taken,” it did not apply
to him, as he did not steal mail; rather, he only delayed or
destroyed it as charged in 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a). Because we read
“taken” mail as an alternative to “stolen” mail in the
application note, and the note seeks to calculate victims as
persons who were deprived of their mail as a result of the
defendant’s actions, we conclude that the district court did not
err in applying USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i) to Bradford.
Bradford also argues that, assuming note 4(C)(i)
applies, the Government did not show by a preponderance of the
evidence that there were 250 or more victims. The evidence,
however, showed that Bradford’s delivery route contained
approximately 800 delivery addresses, and that he burned at
least five full days’ worth of mail. Because the evidence
suggested that the five days’ worth of mail was randomly drawn
from Bradford’s entire route, we hold that the district court
did not clearly err in determining that there were at least 250
victims.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4