USA v. Charles Bogg
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11504 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JLD , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 08/07/2017 for Appellant Charles Boggs [16-11504]
Date Filed: 07/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
July 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHARLES BOGGS, also known as “Nasty”,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-118-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Charles Boggs appeals the 240-month sentence imposed for his
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance. First, he contends that the district court clearly erred in imposing
the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon.
The district court had a reliable basis on which to plausibly find a spatial and
temporal connection between Boggs’s firearm possession and drug-trafficking
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 07/17/2017
activity. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013); United
States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501, 507 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the district
court did not clearly err in finding that he possessed a dangerous weapon. See
United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014).
Next, Boggs contends that the district court clearly erred in imposing the
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for obstruction of justice. “We may affirm an
enhancement on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. GarciaGonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 314 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court’s findings that
Boggs solicited and submitted a false letter from a codefendant to try to reduce
his sentence plausibly supported its ultimate conclusion that he obstructed
justice. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008);
§ 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(F)). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err
in finding that Boggs obstructed justice. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208.
Lastly, Boggs contends that the district court’s denial of the U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility was without foundation. The
district court’s finding that Boggs falsely denied that he possessed a firearm
was not without foundation given the statements of his coconspirators. See
Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the
reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not without foundation because
Boggs falsely denied relevant conduct. See id.; § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(A)).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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?