United States v. Patrick Crites , 566 F. App'x 225 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4976
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    PATRICK CRITES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Elkins.      John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00038-JPB-JSK-1)
    Submitted:   April 7, 2014                    Decided:    April 15, 2014
    Before KEENAN     and   WYNN,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellant.     William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
    States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Patrick Crites pleaded guilty to transmitting a threat
    to    injure    the    person       of    another      in    interstate       commerce,   in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 875
    (a).                       The district court sentenced
    Crites to ten months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals.                             Finding
    no error, we affirm.
    On appeal, Crites argues that the district court erred
    in applying an enhancement under the Guidelines for an official
    victim.        In reviewing the district court’s calculations under
    the    Guidelines,           “we     review          the     district     court’s       legal
    conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
    United States v. Manigan, 
    592 F.3d 621
    , 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).                              We will “find
    clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with
    the    definite       and    firm       conviction         that   a    mistake    has   been
    committed.”          
    Id. at 631
     (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted).
    The    Guidelines         provide      that    a   district      court   shall
    apply a six-level increase in offense level when the victim of
    the offense is a government officer or employee, the offense was
    motivated by the victim’s status as an officer or employee of
    the    government,      and       the    base    offense       level     is   derived   from
    Chapter     Two,      Part    A     of     the       Guidelines.         U.S.    Sentencing
    Guidelines       Manual       (“USSG”)          § 3A1.2(a),        (b)    (2013).         The
    2
    commentary       to    that    section       provides     that    the    “[G]uideline
    applies when specified individuals are victims of the offense
    . .     .    [and]    does    not    apply       when   the   only    victim    is   an
    organization, agency, or the government.”                        USSG § 3A1.2 App.
    n.1.         Because Crites threatened government employees rather
    than the government in general, we conclude that the district
    court did not err in applying the enhancement for an official
    victim under the Guidelines.              See, e.g., United States v. Polk,
    
    118 F.3d 286
    , 297-98 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.        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 in the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-4976

Citation Numbers: 566 F. App'x 225

Judges: Davis, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 4/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023