United States v. Daniels ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4202
STANLEY BOBBY DANIELS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
(CR-95-374)
Submitted: December 19, 1996
Decided: January 6, 1997
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Joseph A. Balter, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Patricia A. Smith, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Bobby Daniels escaped from the Federal Prison Camp in
Cumberland, Maryland, on August 25, 1995, and was sentenced to an
additional eighteen months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence,
contending that the district court erred in denying him a four-level
reduction for escape from a non-secure facility similar to a commu-
nity corrections center under USSG § 2P1.1(b)(3).* We affirm.
A four-level reduction in offense level should be given "if the
defendant escaped from the non-secure custody of a community cor-
rections center, community treatment center, `half-way house,' or
similar facility." USSG § 2P1.1(b)(3). We have previously agreed
with other circuits, however, that federal prison camps are not facili-
ties which are similar to community corrections centers, community
treatment centers, or halfway houses. See United States v. Sarno, 24
F.3d 618, 623, n.4 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Stalbaum,
63 F.3d 537, 540 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. McCullough, 53
F.3d 164, 164-65 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Cisneros-Garcia,
14 F.3d 41, 42 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tapia, 981 F.2d
1194, 1197-98 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993); United
States v. Shaw, 979 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1992).
The sentence is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1995).
2