US v. David Stover, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4744 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4744 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID KEITH STOVER, JR., Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?