US v. Michael Garnett
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL TRACY GARNETT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge (2:07-cr-00146-1)
December 16, 2008
December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark L. French, CRISWELL & FRENCH, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Tracy Garnett pled guilty to possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal facility, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 930(b) (2006).
The district court sentenced Garnett to
thirty months of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Garnett contends on appeal that the
district court clearly erred in denying a reduction in sentence for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2007). we affirm. A district court's determination as to the defendant's acceptance of responsibility is a factual question reviewed for clear error. 1999). The United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. burden of the is on the defendant that he to is establish entitled to by a Finding no reversible error,
United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, A guilty plea does not automatically a reduction for acceptance of
1238-39 (4th Cir. 1989). entitle a defendant to
See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3).
may not be entitled to a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if the defendant engages in conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. Id. In this case, the
district court found by a preponderance of evidence that Garnett obstructed justice in unsuccessfully attempting to influence his 2
wife to testify falsely and that Garnett gave false testimony at sentencing in that regard. We find no clear error in the
district court's conclusion that Garnett's conduct after he pled guilty was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm Garnett's the sentence. facts and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?