Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 14-4713
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00017-IMK-JSK-2)
Submitted:
February 9, 2015
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Loretta Meredith appeals the district courts criminal
judgment sentencing her to one year and one day of imprisonment
for conspiring to knowingly and corruptly attempt to obstruct,
influence, and impede an official proceeding, in violation of 18
U.S.C.
1512(c)(2)
and
(k)
(2012).
In
accordance
with
appeal
but
questioning
(1) wrongly
increased
Guidelines
range
the
for
whether
base
offense
substantially
the
level
district
for
court
Merediths
interfering
with
the
We affirm.
In
determining
whether
the
district
court
properly
United
first
questions
whether
the
district
court
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
(USSG)
2J1.2(b)(2).
the
unnecessary
expenditure
of
substantial
properly
substantial
Because
increased
interference
significant
Merediths
with
the
government
offense
level
administration
resources
of
were
for
justice.
invested
to
erroneously
double-count
by
applying
the
enhancement
States
v.
Dudley,
941
F.2d
260,
264
(4th
Cir.
See
1991)
administration
of
justice
enhancement
for
underlying
questions
whether
district
perjury offense).
Meredith
clearly
erred
in
next
enhancing
her
sentence
the
because
her
court
offense
USSG 2J1.2(b)(3).
we
the
appropriately
hold
that
enhancement.
district
court
applied
this
disjunctive
construction,
she
fabricated
we
review
Merediths
sentence
for
Gall v.
significant
including
procedural
error,
improperly
on
clearly
erroneous
facts,
we
find
no
or
failing
to
adequately
procedural
error,
we
examine
the
The sentence
See 3553(a).
We presume
F.3d
omitted).
375,
379
The
(4th
Cir.
defendant
bears
(internal
the
quotation
burden
to
rebut
marks
the
received
an
Id.
adequate,
individualized
Our review of the
record
leads
us
to
conclude
that
her
sentence
was
neither
This court
move
in
representation.
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED