Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-31116 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES D. MATTINGLY, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CR-50011 - - - - - - - - - - July 30, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles D. Mattingly, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for wire
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-31116 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES D. MATTINGLY, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CR-50011 - - - - - - - - - - July 30, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles D. Mattingly, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for wire ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-31116
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES D. MATTINGLY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-50011
- - - - - - - - - -
July 30, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles D. Mattingly, Jr., appeals his guilty plea
conviction and sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343. Mattingly argues that the district court erred in
calculating the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1) and
in awarding a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice
under § 3C1.1.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-31116
-2-
The district court did not err in determining that the
intended loss exceeded $10,000. See United States v. Henderson,
19 F.3d 917, 927-28 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 207
(1994); U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.7). The district court did
not clearly err in awarding a two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(c)).
AFFIRMED.