# United States v. Kenneth Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 2016 · 647 F. App'x 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3200426

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Fitzgerald BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 4, 2016
- **Citations:** 647 F. App'x 267
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Duncan, Thacker
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3200426

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3200426. Public record. Not legal advice.