The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4295
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH FITZGERALD BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00275-FDW-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: May 4, 2016
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States
Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Fitzgerald Brown was convicted by a jury of being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and of
possession of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012), 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012), and received a total sentence
of 90 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Brown contends that his
sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of
justice and denying a sentence reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 3C1.1,
3E1.1 (2014). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In determining whether a
sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider, among other
factors, whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and selected a sentence
supported by the record. Id. at 51. In reviewing the district
court’s application of the Guidelines, “we review factual
findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” United
States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2014).
Brown challenges the district court’s decision to apply the
obstruction of justice enhancement, contending that any
erroneous statements he made at the suppression hearing were the
2
result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory rather than a
willful intent to deceive the court. USSG § 3C1.1 cmt. n.2.
The district court rejected this argument, relying on specific
instances of false testimony and its determination that the
disparities between Brown’s testimony and other evidence was too
great to be attributable to mistake or faulty memory. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s
determination was not clearly erroneous. Our conclusion that
the district court did not err in applying the obstruction of
justice enhancement forecloses Brown’s argument that he was
entitled to the acceptance of responsibility adjustment.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3