Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Walter MOSBY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-27
Citations: 713 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 17-4331
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Walter MOSBY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Walter MOSBY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-4331
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2017
Decided: February 27, 2018
Charles Burnham, BURNHAM & GO-ROKHOV PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan, Assistant United States. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Walter Mosby appeals his 46-month sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (2012). Mosby claims on appeal that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for a loss amount exceeding $20,000, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B) (2016). As part of his plea agreement, Mosby signed a statement of facts indicating that the "approximate retail value" of the relevant stolen merchandise was $20,090. Although Mosby argues that this figure is too uncertain to sustain the challenged enhancement, we conclude that Mosby's statement is sufficient evidence to support a factual finding that the loss exceeded $20,000, and the district court here did not clearly err in so finding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2012) (providing standard of review).
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED