US v. Obando-Romero

Filing 920070824


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4707 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUAN OBANDO-ROMERO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00381-REP) Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 24, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Bonnie B. Silcox, Third Year Intern, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Obando-Romero pled guilty to simple assault on a federal officer, 18 U.S.C.A. 111(a) (West Supp. 2007) (Count Two), and possession of contraband in prison, 18 U.S.C. 1791(a)(2) (2000) (Count Three), and was sentenced to forty-one months imprisonment. Obando-Romero appeals his sentence, contending that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court applied a two-level enhancement for bodily injury. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2A2.4(b)(2) (2005). U.S. We affirm. During a search which revealed that he was in possession of marijuana, federal inmate Obando-Romero elbowed Correctional Officer Doyle Cox in the face, breaking his glasses. Cox suffered abrasions on his nose and cheeks, and subsequently developed a black eye. At the sentencing hearing, over Obando-Romero's objection, the district court determined that Cox's injury was sufficient to warrant the enhancement. Application Note 1 to 2A2.4 provides that the term "bodily injury," as used in 2A2.4, is defined in the commentary to USSG 1B1.1. Application Note 1(B) to 1B1.1 defines "bodily injury" as "any significant injury; e.g., an injury that is painful and obvious, or is of a type for which medical attention ordinarily would be sought." We review the district court's determination that a significant injury was sustained under the clearly erroneous - 2 - standard. United States v. Lancaster, 6 F.3d 208, 210 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Isaacs, 947 F.2d 112, 114 (4th Cir. 1991). Here, the court viewed a photograph of Cox which showed his black eye. The injury was obvious and the court could safely We conclude that the district court did infer that it was painful. not clearly err in determining that the enhancement applied. Accordingly, district court. we affirm the sentence imposed by the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?