US v. Matthew Buchanan, No. 14-4396 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4396 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW A. BUCHANAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00501-TSE-1) Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Todd M. Richman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Ryan K. Dickey, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew A. Buchanan appeals the eighteen-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to knowingly, and with intent to defraud, accessing a protected computer without authorization, § 1030(a)(4) (2012). in violation of 18 U.S.C. On appeal, he challenges the calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range, arguing that the district court improperly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) (2013). We affirm. In reviewing the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). An enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1 is appropriate “[i]f . . . the defendant was convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the offense involved an intent § 2B1.1(6)(17(A). to The obtain personal Guidelines information.” commentary defines USSG personal information as “sensitive or private information involving an identifiable individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including (A) medical records; (B) wills; (C) diaries; (D) private correspondence, including email; (E) financial records; (F) photographs of a sensitive or 2 private nature; or (G) similar information.” USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.1. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that established the enhancement that Buchanan should used apply. fraudulent The record password-reset requests, password-cracking software, and other methods to take control of other persons’ YouTube Channels and the videos contained therein, some of which had been made accessible only to friends of the persons who had uploaded them. The district court thus properly found that a preponderance of the evidence showed Buchanan’s offense involved an intent to obtain personal information within the meaning of § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A). States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th See United Cir. 2010) (providing standard) Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
