UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                 v.                               No. 02-4206
DONALD G. RICHARDS,
              Defendant-Appellant.
                                       
           Appeal from the United States District Court
        for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
             James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
                         (CR-01-318-A)

                      Submitted: August 22, 2002

                      Decided: September 10, 2002

        Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
               HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


                              COUNSEL

Drewry B. Hutcheson, Jr., MCGINLEY, ELSBERG & HUTCHE-
SON, P.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Matthew W. Friedrich, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
2                     UNITED STATES v. RICHARDS
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).


                              OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   Over a period of several years, real estate lawyer Donald G. Rich-
ards diverted funds out of his attorney trust account for his own use.
A grand jury indicted Richards on eight counts of mail fraud, in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000). Following a jury trial, Richards was
convicted on seven of the eight counts of mail fraud. The district
court sentenced Richards to thirty-seven months in prison. Richards
appeals, arguing that the district court erred by enhancing his sentenc-
ing based on a vulnerable victim and obstruction of justice (perjury).
We affirm.

   Richards first argues that the district court erred by enhancing his
sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3A1.1(b)(1) (2001). This guideline provides for a two-level upward
adjustment if the defendant knew or should have known a victim of
the offense was a vulnerable victim. Richards knew that one of his
clients, John Husch, had been institutionalized for a mental break-
down. Richards misappropriated approximately $138,000 belonging
to Husch. We find that the district court did not clearly err by finding
that Husch was a vulnerable victim and, on that basis, enhancing
Richards’ sentence under USSG § 3A1.1. United States v. Parolin,

, 927 n.2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2001);
United States v. Brawner, 

, 973 (6th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Cruz, 

, 1138-39 (3d Cir. 1997).

   Next, Richards claims that the district court erred in applying a
two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on perjured testi-
mony. See USSG § 3C1.1. To establish the obstruction of justice
enhancement based on perjury, the sentencing court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant gave false testimony
concerning a material matter, with a willful intent to deceive, rather
than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. United
                     UNITED STATES v. RICHARDS                     3
States v. Sun, 

, 314 (4th Cir. 2002). Although we find
that the district court committed clear error when it concluded that
Richards testified that he obtained permission from a client to make
a partial payment and hence, committed perjury, any error was harm-
less because the district court properly concluded that Richards per-
jured himself when he denied converting client funds for personal
use. Therefore, the district court properly applied the two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice.

   For these reasons, we affirm Richards’ conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                        AFFIRMED