UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4918

NORTIRA PETITFRERE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-369)

Submitted: May 23, 2002

Decided: June 21, 2002

Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Lionel S. Lofton, LOFTON & LOFTON, P.C., Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Nortira Petitfrere pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999 and Supp. 2001). The district

court sentenced him to 97 months imprisonment. On appeal, Petitfrere

argues his sentencing was flawed in four respects. He first claims the

court erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S. Sentencing

Guideline § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. We review a district

court’s finding of fact that a defendant engaged in conduct that

obstructed justice for clear error. See United States v. Self, 132 F.3d

1039, 1041 (4th Cir. 1997). We find that the court correctly concluded

that Petitfrere made false statements that obstructed the investigation

of the scope of his own relevant conduct as well as obstructing the

investigation of other potential co-conspirators. 

Next, Petitfrere objects to the court’s refusal to lower his offense

level for acceptance of responsibility. We review the district court’s

determination that a defendant does not warrant credit for acceptance

of responsibility for clear error. See United States v. White, 875 F.2d

427, 431 (4th Cir. 1989). Given the finding that Petitfrere obstructed

justice by refusing to admit to the entire extent of his relevant conduct, we find the district court did not clearly err in refusing to lower

Petitfrere’s offense level of acceptance of responsibility. 

Petitfrere also challenges the court’s enhancement of his offense

level under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on his possession of a firearm

during his offense. A finding that a defendant’s offense level should

be increased under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) is reviewed for clear error.

See United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001).

We find the district court correctly determined that it was not "clearly

improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." USSG

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3). 

2 UNITED STATES v. PETITFRERE
Finally, Petitfrere claims he should have received a sentence reduction under the "safety valve" provision of USSG § 5C1.2. Based on

our rulings above, we find that Petitfrere does not meet the criteria

necessary to warrant a sentence reduction under § 5C1.2. 

Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

UNITED STATES v. PETITFRERE 3