*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708, 2.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30425

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNSON ADETOPE OLAREMI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CR-113-B-1)

December 11, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnston Adetope Olaremi appeals his conviction and sentence following a

jury trial for theft of mail and aiding and abetting the theft of mail.1 Olaremi
2 United States v. Hall, 632 F.2d 500, 503 n.5 (5th Cir. 1980).

3 United States v. Nash, 649 F.2d 369, 371 (5th Cir. 1981), quoting Smith v. United

States, 343 F.2d 539, 542 (5th Cir. 1965); 18 U.S.C. § 1708.

2

contends that the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion for a judgment of

acquittal because the government failed to prove that the mail was taken from an

“authorized depository”; (2) imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of

justice; and (3) increasing his criminal history category for failing to adequately

reflect the seriousness of past criminal conduct or likelihood of recidivism.

Our review of the record persuades that the evidence is sufficient to support

the finding that the mail wastaken from an authorized depository. “An ‘authorized

depository’ can be anything ranging from a regulation mailbox to a clothespin clip

on the addressee’s doorstep.”2 In the case at bar, the letter was placed for collection

in a green box above the mailboxes. Testimony revealed that this box was used

routinely by apartment tenantsfor outgoing mail. Given “the realities of delivering

and receiving mail in a modern urban environment,” we are compelled to conclude

that the evidence at bar abundantly demonstrates the taking of mail herein “which

has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized

depository of mail matter.”3

Olaremi’s challenge to the obstruction of justice enhancement to his offense
4

 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment (n.3(h)).

5

 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment (n.5).

3

level is equally without merit. Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines

provides for a two-point increase in the offense level for obstruction of justice.

Conduct warranting the enhancement includes “providing materially false

information to a probation officer in respect to a presentence or other investigation

for the court.”4 Material information is “information that, if believed, would tend

to influence or affect the issue under determination.”5

The district court based the computation increase on a finding that on three

occasions Olaremi gave materially false statements to the probation officer about

his knowledge of his codefendant’s illegal activities. The trial court gave due

consideration to the Pre-Sentence InvestigationReport, defendant’s objections, the

codefendant’s trial testimony, and other relevant information. We perceive no

clearly erroneous finding of fact and conclude that the court correctly interpreted

and applied section 3C1.1.

Finally Olaremi contends that the increase of his criminal history category

was erroneous. Section 4A1.3 of the Guidelines provides for a category increase

“[i]f reliable information indicates that the criminal history category does not

adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or the
4

likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. . . .” Olaremi’s criminal

history category originally was set at category IV. A correction of the probation

officer’s erroneous characterization of two offenses as one resulted in a step up to

category V. After considering Olaremi’s prior convictions, as well as criminal

conduct not resulting in prosecution, the trial court increased his criminal history

to category VI. We find no error in that categorization. Olaremi’s prior and

current convictions are strikingly similar and demonstrate a propensity to commit

fraud. The lower category did not accurately reflect the seriousness of his criminal

history and the likelihood of recidivism. We conclude that the increase by the trial

court was justified and find no error in same.

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.