US v. Chris McCright, No. 13-4077 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRIS R. MCCRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00080-MSD-LRL-1) Submitted: August 28, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Nandor F.R. Kiss, Kendall A. Hamilton, Third-Year Law Students, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chris R. McCright pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to a term of 110 months imprisonment. McCright appeals his sentence, contending that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court denied him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2012). under U.S. Sentencing We affirm. McCright was arrested on May 13, 2007, and initially charged in state court with the firearms offense. At a preliminary hearing, a witness testified falsely on McCright s behalf that the firearm belonged to him, not to McCright. state charges McCright was against later McCright charged with were the subsequently instant based on the same incident, and pled guilty. The dropped. federal offense At sentencing, the district court determined that McCright had obstructed justice at his preliminary hearing in state court reduction for acceptance of responsibility. that McCright s was not an extraordinary and denied him a The court found case where both adjustments could be applied, in part because his guilty plea in the federal proceeding came one day before his scheduled trial. See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4. On appeal, McCright does not dispute that he obstructed justice, but points out that the obstructive conduct 2 occurred before the federal investigation and prosecution. He argues that the district court did not consider all the relevant factors before overruling his objection. Sentences are reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Guidelines However, range a is sentence a significant within a Miscalculation of the procedural properly range is presumptively reasonable. Gall v. error. calculated Id. Guidelines United States v. Mendoza- Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court s determination that a defendant is not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear error. 171, 177 (4th indication that of results ordinarily Cir. an indicates responsibility 2010). acceptance in for United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d A of his plea responsibility; adjustment that guilty the for however, obstruction defendant criminal generally has conduct, extraordinary cases both adjustments may apply. cmt. n.4. of not is an conduct justice accepted although in USSG § 3E1.1 The question of whether a defendant who obstructed justice is entitled to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction [is] largely a factual matter to be determined by the district court. Id. at 176. 3 McCright does not dispute that he obstructed justice, but merely states that the obstructive conduct occurred before the federal investigation and prosecution and argues that the district court did not consider all the relevant factors before overruling his objection. The law in this Circuit and most others is that an adjustment for obstruction of justice applies when the obstructive conduct occurred in a prior state investigation or prosecution if it is federal conviction. based on the same facts as the later United States v. Self, 132 F.3d 1039, 1042- 43 (4th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Alexander, 602 F.3d 639, 642-43 (5th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). The district court evaluated the evidence of McCright s acceptance of responsibility and concluded that, because it came late, rather than early, in his federal prosecution, McCright s was not an applied. extraordinary case where both adjustments should be We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
