US v. Sandy Oate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00137-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999670235]. [15-4002]

Appeal: 15-4002

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SANDY JAMES OATES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00137-WO-1)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015

Decided:

October 1, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T.
Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4002

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

Oates

his

PER CURIAM:
Sandy
guilty

to

James

possession

appeals

of

a

firearm

sentence
by

a

after

convicted

pleading
felon,

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012).

in

Finding

no error, we affirm.
Oates argues that the district court erroneously applied
the

kidnapping

cross-reference,

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a), 2A4.1(a), (b)(3) (2013), in
determining

the

advisory

Sentencing

Guidelines

range.

Upon

review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’
arguments

on

appeal,

we

conclude

that

the

district

court

correctly found that Oates possessed a firearm in connection
with the commission of a kidnapping under North Carolina law.
The district court thus did not err in applying the kidnapping
cross-reference.

See United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 182

(4th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2