Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie PEGRAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-12
Citations: 64 F. App'x 904
Docket Number: No. 03-4123
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie PEGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 904–905

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie PEGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4123.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2003.
Decided June 12, 2003.
Charles Arthur Gavin, Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael C. Wallace, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ronnie W. Pegram appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit a crime of violence, specifically arson, in violation of 18 U.S.C, § 373 (2000). Pegram argues that the district court erred in determining his sentence, specifically that the court erroneously applied the solicitation to commit murder guideline. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A1.5 (2002). Pegram asserts that the evidence did not show that he intended that death or serious injury occur, and the district court only speculated as to his intent, which is specifically prohibited by the Guidelines. See USSG § 2X1.1, comment, (n.2). Because we conclude that this argument is without merit, we affirm.
We review the district court's guideline selection de novo. United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088, 1091 (4th Cir.1993). Our review of the district court's application of the Guidelines and the evidence before the district court regarding Pegram's intent convinces us that the district court correctly concluded that Pegram in tended that death or serious bodily injury result from the arson he solicited. The district court properly applied § 2A1.5 to determine Pegram's sentence, as in this case, "the extent of appellant's crime is not reflected by the simple application of the [arson] guideline." United States v. Depew, 932 F.2d 324, 329 (4th Cir.1991).
We therefore affirm Pegram's conviction and sentence. 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.