UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4894

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER BRADFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:10-cr-00512-AW-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, OFFICE OF 

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. 

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Adam K. Ake, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Christopher Bradford appeals the sentence of 

twelve months and one day imposed following his conviction of 

delay and destruction of mail by a postal employee, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1703 (2006). On appeal, Bradford argues that the 

district court erred in applying a six-level sentencing 

enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (2010). We affirm.

In reviewing a district court’s application of the 

Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and 

questions of law de novo. United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 

330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). In applying a sentencing enhancement, 

the district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the conduct underlying the enhancement occurred. See

United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 803 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), if a property 

damage or destruction offense involved 250 or more victims, a 

six-level enhancement is appropriate. On appeal, Bradford first 

argues that the district court erred in utilizing application 

note 4(C)(i) to calculate the number of victims involved in the 

offense. Application note 4(C)(i) provides:

In a case in which undelivered United States mail was 

taken, or the taking of such item was an object of the 

offense, or in a case in which the stolen property 

received, transported, transferred, transmitted, or 

possessed was undelivered United States mail, “victim” 
3

means (I) any victim as defined in Application Note 1; 

or (II) any person who was the intended recipient, or 

addressee, of the undelivered United States mail. 

USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i). Bradford contends that, because 

application note 4(C)(i) uses the word “taken,” it did not apply 

to him, as he did not steal mail; rather, he only delayed or 

destroyed it as charged in 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a). Because we read 

“taken” mail as an alternative to “stolen” mail in the 

application note, and the note seeks to calculate victims as 

persons who were deprived of their mail as a result of the 

defendant’s actions, we conclude that the district court did not 

err in applying USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i) to Bradford.

Bradford also argues that, assuming note 4(C)(i) 

applies, the Government did not show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that there were 250 or more victims. The evidence, 

however, showed that Bradford’s delivery route contained

approximately 800 delivery addresses, and that he burned at 

least five full days’ worth of mail. Because the evidence 

suggested that the five days’ worth of mail was randomly drawn 

from Bradford’s entire route, we hold that the district court 

did not clearly err in determining that there were at least 250 

victims.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED