US v. David Stover, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00030-IMK-MJA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000043330].. [16-4744]

Appeal: 16-4744

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID KEITH STOVER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:16-cr-00030-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Decided:

March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia;
Kristen M. Leddy, Research & Writing Specialist, FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICE, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy
Steinfeld Jividen, Acting United States Attorney, David J. Perri,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4744

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Keith Stover, Jr., pled guilty to possession of firearms
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
The

district

court

downwardly

departed

from

the

advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range and sentenced Stover to 36 months’
imprisonment.
failing

to

On appeal, Stover contends that the court erred in
grant

responsibility.
(2016).

a

downward

adjustment

for

acceptance

of

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1

We affirm.

Because Stover did not object to the court’s decision not to
grant the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, our review is
for plain error.

United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292

(4th Cir. 2012); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,
1126-27

(2013)

(describing

plain

error

review).

Under

the

Guidelines, a defendant is eligible for a reduction of his offense
level if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for
his offense.”

USSG § 3E1.1.

is

of

deserving

court

considers,

the

When determining whether a defendant

acceptance-of-responsibility

among

other

factors,

whether

reduction,
the

a

defendant

voluntarily terminated or withdrew from criminal conduct.

USSG

§ 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(B); see United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236,
240 (4th Cir. 2007) (“The decision to grant an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction often depends on the actions of the
defendant following his or her arrest or plea.”).
2

Appeal: 16-4744

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Here, Stover did not terminate or withdraw from criminal
conduct after his arrest.

Instead, he twice drove with a revoked

license, once while intoxicated.
for

acceptance

of

Stover avers that a reduction

responsibility

was

nevertheless

warranted

because this new criminal conduct was unrelated to the offense
conduct.

We have never adopted such a rule, and we decline to

recognize one here.
additional

criminal

The court warned Stover that engaging in any
conduct

while

on

pretrial

release

would

disqualify him for the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did
not plainly err in declining to grant the reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3