Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-05201/USCOURTS-ca4-08-05201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eureka Barnes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5201

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EUREKA BARNES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:05-cr-01297-TLW-1) 

Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: January 12, 2010 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. 

Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, 

William E. Day, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-5201 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/12/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Eureka Barnes pled guilty to one count of making false 

statements to a Secret Service agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1001 (2006). Barnes was sentenced to thirty-six months’ 

imprisonment, and now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 We find Barnes’s sentence is not procedurally 

unreasonable. In sentencing a defendant, a district court must 

first properly calculate the Guideline range. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). When 

reviewing the district court’s application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact for clear error 

and questions of law de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 

F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). 

 Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the 

district court followed the necessary procedural steps in 

sentencing Barnes, and properly calculated the applicable 

Guideline range. Accordingly, we affirm the 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

Appeal: 08-5201 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/12/2010 Pg: 2 of 2