US v. Kenneth Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00275-FDW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999812277].. [15-4295]

Appeal: 15-4295

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH FITZGERALD BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00275-FDW-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2016

Decided:

May 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States
Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4295

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Fitzgerald Brown was convicted by a jury of being a
felon

in

possession

of

a

firearm

and

ammunition

and

of

possession of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012), 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012), and received a total sentence
of 90 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Brown contends that his

sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of
justice

and

denying

responsibility.
3E1.1 (2014).
We

a

sentence

U.S.

Sentencing

for

Guidelines

acceptance

Manual

of

§§ 3C1.1,

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

review

a

sentence

for

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States,

U.S.

552

reduction

38,

41

reasonableness,
standard.”

(2007).

In

applying

Gall

determining

v.

“a

United

whether

a

sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider, among other
factors,

whether

the

district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and selected a sentence
supported by the record.

Id. at 51.

court’s

the

application

of

In reviewing the district

Guidelines,

“we

review

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.”

factual
United

States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2014).
Brown challenges the district court’s decision to apply the
obstruction

of

justice

enhancement,

contending

that

any

erroneous statements he made at the suppression hearing were the
2

Appeal: 15-4295

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory rather than a
willful intent to deceive the court.

USSG § 3C1.1 cmt. n.2.

The district court rejected this argument, relying on specific
instances

of

false

testimony

and

its

determination

that

the

disparities between Brown’s testimony and other evidence was too
great to be attributable to mistake or faulty memory.
reviewed

the

record,

we

conclude

that

determination was not clearly erroneous.

the

Having

district

court’s

Our conclusion that

the district court did not err in applying the obstruction of
justice

enhancement

forecloses

Brown’s

argument

that

he

was

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

entitled to the acceptance of responsibility adjustment.

dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3