United States v. Alexander George ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-3633
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Alexander George,                        *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 6, 1998
    Filed: April 15, 1998
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In November 1996, Alexander George pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1343
    . The district court1 sentenced him to thirteen months
    in prison and three years supervised release, and ordered restitution in the amount of
    $20,792.09. When George later withdrew his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, the
    district court afforded him a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and
    resentenced him to 12 months in prison. George appeals, and we affirm.
    1
    The HONORABLE STEPHEN M. REASONER, Chief Judge, United States
    District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Relying on United States v. Atlas, 
    94 F.3d 447
    , 451-52 (8th Cir. 1996), George
    argues that the district court erred in affording him only a one-level acceptance-of-
    responsibility reduction. Because he failed to raise this issue in the district court, we
    review his sentence for plain error. We conclude there was no plain error because
    George&s substantial rights were not affected by the one-level reduction. See United
    States v. Montanye, 
    996 F.2d 190
    , 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (plain error requires
    showing that the error affected substantial rights). Had the district court given him a
    two-level reduction, George&s guidelines sentencing range would have been reduced
    from 10-16 months to 8-14 months. A review of the two sentencing proceedings
    satisfies us that this change would not have affected his sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-3633

Filed Date: 4/15/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015