Court Opinion

ID: 990797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:27:03.182118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:42.414604
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                         No. 95-5923

WADDELL EUGENE CALDWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-157)

Submitted: August 27, 1996

Decided: November 13, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, John W. Stone, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Waddell Eugene Caldwell appeals from the sentence imposed by
the district court after pleading guilty to attempted armed bank rob-
bery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1996). We
affirm.

Caldwell argues that the district court erred in not applying United
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2X1.1(b)(1)
(Nov. 1995), which provides for a three level decrease "unless the
defendant completed all the acts the defendant believed necessary for
successful completion of the substantive offense or the circumstances
demonstrate that the defendant was about to complete all such acts
but for apprehension or interruption by some similar event beyond the
defendant's control." At Caldwell's sentencing hearing the district
court refused to apply U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(1) because it determined
that Caldwell had completed all the acts he believed necessary to
complete the bank robbery and most likely left the bank before com-
pleting the robbery because of apprehension of being detected and/or
arrested. Where the district court's decision to make or not make an
adjustment is primarily a factual determination this Court applies the
clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Daughtrey, 874
F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Upon reviewing the record, we find
that the district court's determination was not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2