Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PATILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 91 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 03-4633
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James PATILLO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James PATILLO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4633.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2004.
Decided: March 24, 2004.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Patillo appeals his sixty-month sentence pursuant to a guilty plea on one count of escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2000). On appeal, he maintains that: (1) the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2000) for obstruction of justice; and (2) the court's application of USSG § 3C1.2, reckless endangerment during flight, and USSG § 2Pl.l(b)(l), threat or use of force against a person during escape, constituted impermissible double counting. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and its application of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). The district court determines issues related to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Engleman, 916 F.2d 182, 184 (4th Cir.1990).
We have reviewed the briefs and materials submitted in the joint appendix in light of Patillo's arguments and find no error in Patillo's sentencing. We therefore affirm his sentence based upon the reasoning stated by the district court at Patillo's sentencing hearing. 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