Court Opinion

ID: 989345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:05:58.650187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:43.039370
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 95-5648

CHARLES RAYMOND WABLE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-24)

Submitted: May 16, 1996

Decided: May 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephanie D. Thacker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Charles Raymond Wable entered a guilty plea to one count of
breaking into a post office, 18 U.S.C. § 2115 (1988), and was sen-
tenced to a term of twenty-seven months imprisonment. He appeals
his sentence, alleging that the district court erred by imposing a two-
level increase for obstruction of justice. We affirm.

Wable argues that the court erred in imposing the two level
increase because USSG § 3C1.1,* which allows enhancements for
obstruction of justice, was not intended to apply to"mere flight," and
the district court failed to specify the extraordinary circumstances that
distinguish this case from avoidance of or flight from arrest.

In this case, however, Wable did far more than simply avoid or flee
from arrest. He left the jurisdiction and remained a fugitive for over
three weeks. During that time, he stole two cars, fled from authorities
a second time by pushing down a deputy in New Mexico, and lied to
state authorities about his name and birthdate. This differs greatly
from the situation where, for example, a criminal makes an instinctive
dodge to avoid arrest. See United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463,
1466-67 (9th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. John, 935 F.2d 644,
648 (4th Cir. 1991) ("mere flight" usually involves passive or instinc-
tive conduct).

The district court has broad discretion to apply§ 3C1.1 to a wide
range of conduct. United States v. Lyon, 959 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir.
1992). Finding that Wable's actions were calculated to "avoid detec-
tion and identification," the district court imposed the increase, and
there is no reason to conclude that it erred in so doing.
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994).

                     2
Because Wable has shown no error by the district court in its appli-
cation of the Sentencing Guidelines in this case, the sentence imposed
is affirmed. 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

                    3