Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Crawford, 00-4275 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-4275 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4275 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD EDWARD CRAWFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-335) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 00-4275



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RONALD EDWARD CRAWFORD,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-99-335)


Submitted:   August 30, 2000              Decided:   September 7, 2000


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attor-
ney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Ronald Crawford appeals the forty-six month imprisonment sen-

tence imposed by the district court following his plea of guilty to

bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp.

2000).   Crawford contends that the district court erred in en-

hancing his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) (Nov. 1998) for making a “threat of death.”

We find that, given the tense atmosphere of a bank robbery,

Crawford’s handing the teller a note on which he wrote that he had

a “gun” (emphasis in original), is sufficient to support enhance-

ment under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). See e.g. United States v. Burns,

160 F.3d 82
, 84 (1st Cir. 1998).     The judgment of the district

court is affirmed.

     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




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer