Court Opinion

ID: 995143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:33:13.789657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:58.606691
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 97-4473

STACY LEE MCCARTY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-70-BO)

Submitted: April 28, 1998

Decided: June 4, 1998

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth A. Martineau,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Lee McCarty appeals the 44-month sentence he received
after he pled guilty to assaulting his infant son and causing serious
bodily injury, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a)(6) (West Supp. 1998). He
contends that the district court's enhancement of his sentence for seri-
ous bodily injury under USSG § 2A2.2(b)(3) 1 was impermissible dou-
ble counting and that the court further erred in finding that he engaged
in more than minimal planning, see USSG§ 2A2.2(b)(1). We affirm.

The facts concerning McCarty's conduct were undisputed. On
October 17, 1996, McCarty squeezed and shook his seven-week-old
son to make him stop crying. After being shaken, the baby was quiet.
On October 21 or 22, McCarty again shook his son, more forcefully
than the first time, holding him partly by the genitals. On October 19
or 20, McCarty bit his son on the chin. On October 23, while sitting
on a hard floor and wrapping his son in a blanket, McCarty shook his
son forcefully and for a longer time than before, allowing the baby's
head to strike the floor once or twice. During this time, McCarty was
not working and his wife was on maternity leave from the Marine
Corps. However, each assault occurred when Mrs. McCarty was not
present. The day after the first shaking incident, the baby's left eye
became noticeably red. McCarty and his wife took him to the base
hospital emergency room but left after several hours without seeing
a doctor. On October 25, the baby was examined at the base hospital
and found to be suffering from multiple abrasions and bruises, six rib
fractures, and intracranial bleeding.

Following the probation officer's recommendation, the district
court applied USSG § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault) and made a four-
level enhancement for serious bodily injury under subsection
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995).

                    2
(b)(3)(B). During the sentencing proceeding, McCarty made no objec-
tion to application of an enhancement for serious bodily injury. On
appeal, he claims that the enhancement constituted impermissible
"double counting" because the same facts supported the use of the
aggravated assault guideline and the enhancement. He argues that the
district court plainly erred in making the enhancement, citing United
States v. Hudson, 972 F.2d 504, 506-07 (2d Cir. 1992).2 However, in
this circuit, "double counting" is permitted in applying the guidelines
unless expressly prohibited. See United States v. Crawford, 18 F.3d
1173, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d
204, 207-08 (4th Cir. 1992)). In Williams, this court specifically con-
sidered the enhancements provided in USSG § 2A2.2 for different
degrees of bodily injury to the victim in holding that the courts "can-
not . . . deprive the Sentencing Commission of its authority to assign
incrementally higher sentences based on important factors such as the
degree of the weapon's involvement and the degree of the victim's
injury." Williams, 954 F.2d at 207. Consequently, we find that the dis-
trict court did not plainly err in making the enhancement.

McCarty also maintains that the district court erred in finding that
the offense involved more than minimal planning and making an
additional two-level enhancement under subsection (b)(1). "More
than minimal planning" is defined in USSG § 1B1.1, comment.
(n.1(f)), as "more planning than is necessary for commission of the
offense in a simple form," and "is deemed present in any case involv-
ing repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each
instance was purely opportune." The probation officer recommended
the enhancement because McCarty's offense involved repeated
assaults of increasing violence, most of which were intended to stop
the baby's crying. McCarty argued at sentencing that he reacted spon-
taneously to the crying each time without planning his conduct. How-
ever, the government pointed out that he controlled his temper when
his wife was present. The district court found that one instance of
shaking could be considered spontaneous, but that McCarty's recur-
rent behavior warranted the enhancement. Because McCarty admitted
shaking his son three times, we cannot say that the court's determina-
tion was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Bridges, 50 F.3d 789,
_________________________________________________________________
2 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993).

                    3
792-93 (10th Cir. 1994) ("repeated acts" means more than two
instances).

The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    4