United States of America v. Justin Matthew

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN MATTHEW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-RJC-CH-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela G. Parrott, Acting Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,
Allison Wexler, Assistant Federal Defenders, Asheville, North
Carolina, Elizabeth A. Blackwood, Assistant Federal Defender,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
United States Attorney, Laura L. Ferris, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Justin Matthew pled guilty without a plea agreement to
one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011), and one
count of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011), and was sentenced
to seventy months in prison. He appeals from the district
court’s judgment, challenging only the district court’s decision
to enhance his base offense level four levels under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.5(2)(B) (2006),
based on the fact that he was wearing a bulletproof vest at the
time he committed a drug trafficking crime. We affirm the
district court’s judgment.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying its Guidelines range calculation for clear error, and
its legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 223 (4th Cir. 2008). Under
USSG § 3B1.5, an enhancement for body armor should be applied
if: (1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime
or a crime of violence; and (2) the offense involved the use of
body armor, or (3) the defendant used body armor during the
commission of the offense, in preparation for the offense, or in
an attempt to avoid apprehension for the offense. See USSG

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 3B1.5 (2006). If the offense involved the use of body armor,
a two-level enhancement applies, USSG § 3B1.5(2)(A), and if the
defendant used body armor during the commission of, in
preparation for, or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the
offense, a four-level enhancement applies. USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B).
We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’
arguments and discern no error in the district court’s decision
to apply the four-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --