Court Opinion

ID: 992193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:48:09.498011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:46.053383
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4685

ROBERT MCDONALD PARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-95-86)

Submitted: May 1, 1997

Decided: May 13, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Donald Nash Patten, Frank G. Queen, BROWN, QUEEN & PAT-
TEN, P.A., Waynesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Cal-
loway, United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert McDonald Parris was convicted of conspiracy to commit
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994), and was sentenced to fifteen
months imprisonment. He appeals this sentence, alleging that the dis-
trict court erred in adding two points to his criminal history score for
an offense committed while under a sentence of probation. See United
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 4A1.1(d) (Nov.
1995). We affirm.

On June 26, 1995, Parris was paid $200 to take possession of a
Cadillac from Barbara Collins and her daughter, Tracy Rogers. Parris
then delivered the car to Rick Sutton, who was to dispose of it.
Unknown to Parris, Sutton was working as a confidential witness for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sutton paid Parris $500.

On June 27, 1995, Collins reported to police that the car had been
stolen. The next day, June 28, Parris called Sutton to tell him that Col-
lins had reported the car as stolen. Near the end of July, Collins sub-
mitted an insurance claim for the car. Parris was arrested on July 31,
1995.

Parris' presentence report disclosed that he received a sentence of
twelve months unsupervised probation on March 8, 1995, and a two-
year sentence of unsupervised probation on June 28, 1995. On the
basis of the probationary term imposed on June 28, two criminal his-
tory points were added to his score. See USSG § 4A1.1, comment.
(n.4) (two points added if defendant committed any part of the instant
offense, i.e., any relevant conduct, while under a criminal justice sen-
tence, including probation). For reasons not made clear in the materi-
als presented on appeal, the term of unsupervised probation imposed
on March 8, 1995, was not taken into account by the probation officer
or the district court.

                    2
Parris challenged the two criminal history points at sentencing,
arguing that his part in the conspiracy did not continue past June 26.
The district court overruled his objection and found that Parris made
a telephone call in furtherance of the conspiracy on June 28, while he
was under the probationary sentence. Parris did not deny making the
call.

We conclude that the two criminal history points were correctly
awarded. Parris had the burden of correcting any factual errors in the
presentence report, such as the fact or the timing of his telephone call
to Sutton. United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the two points could have been given for the probationary
sentence imposed on March 8, 1995, well before Parris became
involved in the mail fraud.

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

                    3