Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darin Heath WEST, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10332.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 3, 2004.
    Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Adrienne Urrutia, Law Office of Adrienne Urrutia, San Antonio, TX, Fred C. Brigman, III, Law Offices of Fred C. Brig-man III, San Angelo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Darin Heath West appeals from his jury-verdict conviction for armed bank robbery (“Count One”), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (“Count Two”), and carjacking (“Count Three”). He first argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict for Count Two because there was no evidence proving that the firearm he used during the robbery was real. West properly preserved this issue for appeal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the Government proved all of the essential elements regarding Count Two. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575-76 (5th Cir.1999).

West also contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on its finding that he committed perjury at trial. Because the record supports the district court’s finding regarding this issue, the district court did not clearly err by applying the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.1994).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.