United States v. Shaw , 102 F. App'x 291 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES BERNARD SHAW, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-03-30)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, P.L.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted James Bernard Shaw, Jr., of conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base,
cocaine, and marihuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possession with
intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000),
possession with intent to distribute marihuana, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). He was sentenced to
101 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Shaw claims that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in imposing a
two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury.
We affirm.
Shaw first claims that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during a
warrantless search. This court reviews the factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. See United States v. Seidman, 156
F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the briefs, the
transcript of the hearing on the motion, and the other materials
submitted by the parties, and conclude that the district court did
not err in denying Shaw’s motion to suppress.
- 2 -
Next, Shaw claims that the district court erred in
applying a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on
perjured testimony. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1
(2002). This court reviews a district court’s application of the
sentencing guidelines with regard to factual determinations for
clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. United
States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 471 (4th Cir. 1999). The
determination of whether a defendant committed perjury is a factual
issue and, therefore, will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous.
United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1148 (4th Cir. 1992).
To establish the obstruction of justice enhancement based
on perjury, the sentencing court must find by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant gave false testimony concerning a
material matter, with a willful intent to deceive, rather than as
a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. United States v.
Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 314 (4th Cir. 2002). We find that the district
court did not commit clear error when it concluded that Shaw
committed perjury when he testified that he did not engage in any
drug dealing and he did not know the contents of the briefcase
found in his vehicle. Therefore, the district court properly
applied the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.
Accordingly, we affirm Shaw’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -