United States v. Doris McConnell

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DORIS JEAN MCCONNELL, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-4290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARSHA L. MCCONNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-98-11) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert K. Davis, William M. Stanley, DAVIS & STANLEY, L.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Marsha and Doris McConnell appeal from their sentences for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994). We affirm. The McConnells contend only that the district court erred in enhancing their sentences under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1(b)(2) (1998), for more than minimal planning. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying this enhancement. See United States v. Pearce, 65 F.3d 22, 26 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s use of the enhancement and Defendants’ sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3