US v. Carl Steward, No. 10-4820 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARL W. STEWARD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cr-00228-1) Submitted: January 4, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Thomas C. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl violation of Steward 26 pleaded U.S.C. § 7201 guilty to (2006). tax At evasion, the in sentencing hearing, the district court determined that the total amount owed by Steward in unpaid taxes exceeded $80,000. Accordingly, the court applied a base offense level of 16, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) §§ 2T1.1 and 2T4.1 (tax table) (2009). increases and After decreases, calculating the the district appropriate court level determined that Steward s total offense level was 17 and his criminal history category was I, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of twentyfour to thirty months. The district court sentenced Steward to twenty-four months. Steward now appeals, claiming that the amount of unpaid taxes on which the district court relied in calculating his offense level did not reflect the deductions that Steward could have claimed had he filed accurate tax returns. concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our Steward opinion in United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007), and we agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err. We affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
