US v. Gregory Snodgrass, No. 12-4284 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY ELLIOT SNODGRASS, a/k/a Gutta, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00056-D-1) Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: February 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron C. Dunning, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Elliot Snodgrass appeals the 126-month sentence imposed upon him after he pled guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Snodgrass attacks his sentence in three ways on appeal, arguing that the district court erred in enhancement; (1) (2) applying overruling the his obstruction objection to of the justice presentence report s drug quantity calculation; and (3) denying him a threepoint reduction responsibility. We under the Guidelines for acceptance of We have reviewed the record, and we affirm. first conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in applying to Snodgrass an enhancement for obstruction of justice. enhancement applies intimidat[es], or to a otherwise defendant, witness, attempt[s] to do As the application notes clarify, the defendant unlawfully or juror, so. U.S. who threaten[s], influenc[es] directly Sentencing or a indirectly, Guidelines coor Manual ( USSG ) § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(A) (2011). In court erred this in Court, giving Snodgrass him an argues that enhancement under the USSG district § 3C1.1 because the individual he threatened was not a witness. As Snodgrass made no such argument in the district court, his claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 2 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010). But no such error was committed: as the Government points out, the threatened individual witnessed Snodgrass arrive at a residence in order to sell drugs to an undercover officer. witness to Because the threatened individual was a Snodgrass criminal conduct, Snodgrass merited an enhancement under § 3C1.1. We challenge quantities to likewise the conclude district involved in his that offense. fails calculations court s Snodgrass of In assessing in the his drug whether a sentencing court correctly applied the Guidelines, the district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008). United States Again, our review of the record reveals that no such error was committed. well within the district court s v. prerogative to It was credit the testimony of the Government s witness who testified as to the pertinent drug weights. See United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 462 (4th Cir. 2012). And to the extent that Snodgrass challenges the testimony as attributing drug weights to him over a period of time during which he was incarcerated, the district court properly observed that the drug quantities attributed to Snodgrass for purposes of his Guidelines calculations did not include any drugs purportedly sold during that time period. 3 Finally, Snodgrass argues that the district court erred in denying him a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1. But as Snodgrass recognizes, a § 3E1.1 acceptance of responsibility reduction and a § 3C1.1 obstruction of justice enhancement are usually mutually exclusive, allowing for application of both provisions only in extraordinary cases. USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4. not qualify as such an extraordinary case. This case does We therefore decline to revisit the district court s decision not to award him a § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
