United States v. Owen , 11 F. App'x 86 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 00-4735
    MARGARET OWEN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 00-4764
    ALFRED CURTIS WATTS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 00-4765
    EARL DAVID COCHRAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.
    (CR-00-89-2)
    Submitted: March 20, 2001
    Decided: April 3, 2001
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    2                       UNITED STATES v. OWEN
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P.,
    Charleston, West Virginia; R. Clarke Vandervort, Charleston, West
    Virginia; Donald L. Stennett, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
    lants. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Margaret Owen, Earl David Cochran, and Alfred Curtis Watts were
    convicted by a jury for tampering with a witness, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1512
    (b) (West 2000). Owen and Cochran were also con-
    victed of an additional count of retaliating against a witness, in viola-
    tion of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1513
    (b)(1) (West 2000). The three defendants
    were sentenced to forty-one months imprisonment. On appeal, they
    challenge the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict
    against them and the district court’s imposition of a two-level
    enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to United States Sen-
    tencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3C1.1 (Nov. 1998) based
    on their perjurious testimony at trial. Owen further maintains that the
    trial court erred in admitting evidence relating to her alleged member-
    ship in a militia group. We affirm.
    This Court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence by
    determining whether there is substantial evidence, when viewed in a
    light most favorable to the government, to support the verdict.
    Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942). We have reviewed
    UNITED STATES v. OWEN                         3
    the briefs submitted on appeal, and the materials submitted in the joint
    appendix, and find that there was sufficient evidence to support the
    jury’s verdict against all three defendants. With respect to the sen-
    tencing enhancement, whether defendants’ conduct amounted to an
    obstruction of justice is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.
    United States v. Saintil, 
    910 F.2d 1231
    , 1232 (4th Cir. 1990). The
    underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States
    v. Daughtrey, 
    874 F.2d 213
    , 217 (4th Cir. 1989). We find no error in
    the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement based on
    the defendants’ perjury at trial. Last, we find no error in the district
    court’s admission of evidence regarding Owen’s alleged involvement
    with a militia group. United States v. Hassan El, 
    5 F.3d 726
    , 731 (4th
    Cir. 1993) (this court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of dis-
    cretion).
    Accordingly, we affirm Owen’s, Cochran’s, and Watts’ convictions
    and sentences. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4735, 00-4764, 00-4765

Citation Numbers: 11 F. App'x 86

Judges: Diana, Gribbon, Hamilton, Motz, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 4/3/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023