US v. Eureka Barnes

Filing 920100112

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5201 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUREKA BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01297-TLW-1) Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: January 12, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, William E. Day, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eureka Barnes pled guilty to one count of making false statements to a Secret Service agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (2006). Barnes was sentenced to thirty-six months' imprisonment, and now appeals. We unreasonable. find Barnes's Finding no error, we affirm. sentence is not procedurally In sentencing a defendant, a district court must Gall v. United first properly calculate the Guideline range. States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). When reviewing the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). Having district sentencing Guideline sentence. legal before court reviewed followed and the the record, necessary we conclude that steps the in procedural the Barnes, range. properly we calculated affirm the applicable and Accordingly, conviction We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would process. AFFIRMED 2

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?