United States v. Feazell

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4772 STEWART FEAZELL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-96-62) Submitted: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 13, 1997 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James W. Keenan, KEENAN & OOTEN, L.C., Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Margaret A. Hickey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Stewart Feazell appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the taking and carry- ing away personal property of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 661 (1994). We affirm. Feazell asserts that the district court erred in applying United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,§ 3C1.1 (Nov. 1995), which provides for a two-level enhancement if "the defendant will- fully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sen- tencing of the instant offense." Where the district court's decision to make an adjustment is primarily a factual determination, this Court applies the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). During Feazell's sen- tencing hearing the district court determined that Feazell improperly circulated his presentence report to incite his friends to commit vio- lence against potential government witnesses.* We find no clear error in the district court's determination that this conduct is sufficient to justify a § 3C1.1 enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ *Contrary to Appellant's assertion in this appeal, the enhancement was not based on subornation of perjury. Rather, the court adopted the find- ings in the presentence report, which included a suggestion that Appel- lant receive an obstruction of justice enhancement based on inciting violence against government witnesses. 2