Opinion ID: 169408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: su ffic ie nc y of e vidence at sentencing

Text: M r. Edge contends that there was insufficient evidence that he pointed a firearm at M s. Dixon, so the sentencing enhancement based on that alleged conduct must be rejected. W e review a judge’s decision to enhance a sentence for clear error. See United States v. Valdez-Arieta, 127 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 1997). “Under the clearly erroneous standard, we will not reverse the district court’s findings unless they are without factual support in the record, or unless after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The sentencing judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous. M s. Dixon testified at sentencing that M r. Edge pointed the gun at her. It was not unreasonable for the judge to believe the witness. See United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 1999) (appellate court shows great deference to credibility determinations). Nothing she said was inherently unbelievable or contrary to the laws of nature. And although M r. Edge says that his inability to secure the state-court trial transcript before sentencing prevented the court from hearing M s. Dixon’s absurd testimony in the earlier trial, he had the opportunity to ask for a continuance and declined to do so. -8- IV . C ON CLU SIO N W e A FFIR M the judgment below. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz