Court Opinion

ID: 1000073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:01.077884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:44.566373
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4421

BENJAMIN LEWIS ROWLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-73)

Submitted: October 21, 1999

Decided: October 29, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James R. Cromwell, VOGEL & CROMWELL, L.L.C., Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Lewis Rowland pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994),
and received a sentence of 121 months imprisonment. Rowland con-
tests on appeal the district court's decision not to award him an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1998). We affirm.*

Rowland initially entered a plea of not guilty and was released on
bond pending trial. He failed to appear for trial, was apprehended a
week later, and subsequently entered a guilty plea, admitting his part
in the conspiracy. He received an adjustment for obstruction of jus-
tice, see USSG § 3C1.1, as a result of his failure to appear. At sen-
tencing, Rowland argued that his was an unusual case in which a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility would be appropriate
despite his obstructive conduct. Ordinarily, conduct resulting in an
adjustment for obstruction of justice indicates that the defendant has
not accepted responsibility; however, in extraordinary cases both
adjustments may apply. See USSG § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4). In this
case, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that
Rowland had not fully accepted responsibility for his criminal con-
duct. See United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995)
(standard of review).

We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
_________________________________________________________________

*Although Rowland's plea agreement contained a waiver of his right
to appeal his sentence, the joint appendix does not include a transcript of
the guilty plea hearing. We are thus unable to determine whether the
waiver was valid, see United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 168 (4th
Cir. 1991), and must consider the merits of the appeal.

                    2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3