US v. John Armstrong, No. 12-4511 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4511 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ROBERT ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00276-PMD-1) Submitted: February 27, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Robert Armstrong pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) (2006), and was sentenced to a term of 115 months in prison. Armstrong appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2011) for use of a dangerous weapon. We affirm. Armstrong argues that the enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon should not apply because he did not intend to harm the officers but was merely trying to escape. When evaluating a challenge to a sentence enhancement, we review the district court s factual findings only for clear error, and [i]f the issue turns primarily on the legal interpretation of the guidelines, our review is de novo. 601 F.3d 252, omitted). 254 (4th Cir. 2010) United States v. Carter, (internal quotation marks The district court s finding of intent is a factual finding . . . review[ed] for clear error. United States v. Garcia, 34 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1994). The regarding his district intent court to be found Armstrong s incredible and statements determined that Armstrong had acted with the intent to cause bodily injury to the officers. presentence Based on the uncontested facts presented in the investigation report, 2 the district court s determination enhancement sentence. legal before of was fact was properly not clearly applied. We erroneous, therefore and the affirm the 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 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.
