Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Dale WHORTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 79 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 02-21341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Dale WHORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Dale WHORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-21341
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant US Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Michael L Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Dale Whorton appeals from his sentence for bank robbery. "Whorton contends that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level for obstruction of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
"Whorton's adjustment was based on an attempt to escape by scraping mortar from the bricks near his bed, then covering the scraped area with toothpaste. The district court's finding that "Whorton had attempted to obstruct justice was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir.1996). Nothing in the record indicates a connection between mental-health or drug-abuse issues and "Whorton's actions. Rather, the evidence indicates that "Whorton acted on a desire to escape and covered up his actions. Whorton " Voluntarily and intentionally' attempted to escape, which satisfies the 'will-fullness' requirement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1." United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1280 (5th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.