United States v. Beckstead , 178 F. App'x 217 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-5103
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DARWIN CHARLES BECKSTEAD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (CR-04-36)
    Submitted:   March 20, 2006                 Decided:   April 26, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling,
    West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
    Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Darwin Beckstead was convicted by a jury of harboring a
    fugitive, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1071
     (2000), and sentenced to 41 months
    imprisonment.          He     appeals,   claiming   that     the   evidence   was
    insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was
    imposed in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under United
    States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).                 For the reasons that
    follow, we affirm.
    Conviction under § 1071 requires that the Government
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) a federal warrant has
    been   issued    for    the    fugitive’s    arrest,   (2)   the   harborer   had
    knowledge that a warrant had been issued for the fugitive’s arrest,
    (3) the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive, and
    (4) the defendant intended to prevent the fugitive’s discovery or
    arrest.     See United States v. Silva, 
    745 F.2d 840
    , 848 (4th Cir.
    1984).    Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
    the Government, see United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 854 (4th
    Cir. 1996) (en banc), established the following.                   On March 18,
    2004, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Kenny Buzzo as a
    result    of    Buzzo’s       pretrial    release   violations.       Based    on
    information that Buzzo was in the company of Beckstead, U.S.
    Marshals twice came to Beckstead’s trailer in Morgantown, West
    Virginia.      At the time, Beckstead was working as a taxicab driver
    and, according to one witness, Buzzo had been seen in Beckstead’s
    - 2 -
    cab. Beckstead denied any knowledge of Buzzo’s whereabouts.                 A
    deputy Marshal advised Beckstead of the haboring statute and
    potential penalties he faced if he were to render any assistance to
    Buzzo.
    Buzzo was ultimately apprehended when he arrived at a
    doctor’s appointment on April 8, 2004.          Beckstead was sitting in
    his cab in the parking lot outside the doctor’s office and admitted
    that he had driven Buzzo to the appointment.         According to Buzzo’s
    companion, who was seated in the cab with Beckstead, the plan was
    for Beckstead to drive Buzzo to the post office to pick up his
    workman’s compensation check, then to his doctor’s appointment, and
    finally to Big Bear Lake in Preston County, West Virginia.              Buzzo
    was to pay Beckstead an undisclosed amount of money for his
    assistance.     We   find    this    evidence     sufficient    to    support
    Beckstead’s conviction.
    Beckstead also claims that his sentence violates his
    Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker.           Beckstead’s
    base offense level of 19 was determined by subtracting six levels
    from the base offense level assigned to Buzzo in his federal drug
    prosecution,   pursuant     to   U.S.   Sentencing       Guidelines   Manual
    § 2X3.1(a)(1) (2003).       With a criminal history category of II,
    Beckstead’s    sentencing    range,     without    the    enhancement     for
    obstruction of justice, USSG § 3C1.1, would have been 33 to 41
    months imprisonment.      With the additional two-level enhancement,
    - 3 -
    Beckstead’s sentencing range was 41 to 51 months.            To constitute
    Sixth Amendment error after Booker, the sentence imposed must have
    exceeded what could have been imposed without the challenged
    enhancement.    United States v. Evans, 
    416 F.3d 298
    , 300 (4th Cir.
    2005).   Because Beckstead’s 41-month sentence did not exceed the
    maximum sentence authorized by the jury’s verdict, we find no Sixth
    Amendment error.       See Evans, 
    416 F.3d at 300-01
    .
    We therefore affirm Beckstead’s conviction and sentence.
    We   dispense   with    oral   argument   because   the   facts   and   legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-5103

Citation Numbers: 178 F. App'x 217

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 4/26/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023