Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0273-01.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. Renaldo GRAHAM, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4940.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2006.
    Decided: June 16, 2006.
    William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Rose Mary Par-ham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Renaldo Graham appeals his conviction and aggregate 172-month prison sentence for robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.

Graham’s only contention on appeal is that the district court erred in applying a two-level upward adjustment to his base offense level on the robbery charge for physically restraining his victims, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) (2004). When reviewing a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and review questions of law de novo. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.2006). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s findings, and the briefs of the parties, and conclude that Graham qualified for the enhancement for physically restraining his victims, as this court has applied that term. See United States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 471-72 (4th Cir.1999); United States v. Stokley, 881 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, we affirm Graham’s conviction and 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