Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ciam SINON, a/k/a Harvey Kenyatta Simons, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4586.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 23, 2001.
    
      J.C. Powell, Powell Law Offices, Charleston, WV, for appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.
    Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Harvey Kenyatta Simons appeals his 168-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He alleges on appeal that he should have received a reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility and should not have received an enhancement for obstruction of justice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Using a false name, Simons pled guilty, testified to the grand jury, and lied to the probation officer regarding his background. Under these circumstances we do not find that the district court clearly erred in applying the appropriate Guideline provisions. First, notwithstanding his guilty plea, Simons failed to accept responsibility for his crime by lying about his identity. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.1996); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3E1.1 comment, (n.3) (a defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment as a matter of right). Second, Simons’ deceitful conduct may also form the basis for an obstruction of justice enhancement. United States v. Saintil, 910 F.2d 1231, 1232 (4th Cir.1990); USSG § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(f), (g)).

Accordingly, we affirm Simons’ sentence. 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.