UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICIA DERBAUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District
Judge. (CR-97-453)
Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mendel J. Davis, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Derbaum appeals the 235-month sentence she received
after she pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994). She contends that the district court clearly erred in
finding that she obstructed justice, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3C1.1 (1997), and in finding that she failed to accept
responsibility for her criminal conduct. See USSG § 3E1.1. We
affirm.
Following her initial appearance and release on bond, Derbaum
tested positive for drug use on numerous occasions. Her bond was
revoked and she was rearrested. She was again released on bond to
begin a month-long inpatient treatment program. Derbaum then
agreed to cooperate with authorities, but failed to take a
scheduled polygraph examination and absconded before sentencing.
She was arrested a few months later in possession of marijuana and
“crank” (a crytalline amphetamine).
When she was sentenced, Derbaum testified that she failed to
appear for sentencing because she had been threatened by members of
the Hell’s Angels and feared for her safety and that of her
daughter. The district court, however, did not credit her explana-
tion and determined that Derbaum had willfully obstructed justice
and had failed to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility. We
find that neither of the court’s decisions is clearly erroneous.
2
We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3