Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ELTON RICHBURG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-122)
Submitted:
August 27, 2004
Decided:
September 16, 2004
Before WIDENER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Royall

Alspaugh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Elton Richburg pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2000), and was
sentenced to a term of 108 months imprisonment.
Richburg contends
on appeal that the district court clearly erred in finding that, in

his attempt to avoid arrest, he assaulted the arresting officer in
a manner that created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3A1.2(b)(1) (2003). We affirm.
During a traffic stop of the car in which Richburg, a
convicted felon, was a passenger, the police officer learned that
there was an outstanding probation violation warrant for Richburg.
The officer told Richburg that he was under arrest, noticed a gun
in Richburgs waistband, and attempted to handcuff him.
Richburg
turned around and tried to punch the officer in the face, but
missed.
The two struggled and Richburgs gun fell to the ground.
The struggle continued, with the officer punching Richburg in the

face and spraying him in the face with cap-stun, until other
officers arrived.
At Richburgs sentencing, over his objection,
the district court determined that Richburg had assaulted the

officer in a manner that created a substantial risk of serious
bodily
injury
and
gave
him
three-level
adjustment
under
3A1.2(b)(1).
The
district
courts
factual
finding
that
Richburg
assaulted the officer in a manner that created a risk of serious
- 2 -
bodily injury is reviewed for clear error.
United States v.
Harrison, 272 F.3d 220, 223 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S.
839 (2002).
Richburg argues that his conduct did not create a
substantial
risk
of
distinguish
his
case
serious
from
bodily
injury.
Harrison,
where
He
attempts
the
to
defendants
accomplice shot at pursuing police officers,* id. at 222, and from

United States v.
Sloley, 19 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 1994), in
which the defendant resisted arrest by struggling with the officer

and grabbing his gun.
Application of 3A1.2(b) usually is based on some actual
injury to the law enforcement officer or a clear attempt by the
defendant to inflict serious injury, as in Harrison and Sloley.
See, e.g., United States v. Zaragoza-Fernandez, 217 F.3d 31, 33
(1st Cir. 2000) (defendant drove his car at military policeman who
suffered
glancing
blow
on
knee
as
he
jumped
clear);
United
States v. Ashley, 141 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998) (minor injuries
suffered
by
four
officers
in
subduing
defendant).
However,
circumstances alone that presented a risk of injury have been held

to warrant the adjustment.
See United States v. Waldman, 310 F.3d
1074, 1079 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant pointed loaded gun at back of
officers head and threatened to kill him); United States v. Bowie,
In Harrison, the appellant received adjustments under

3A1.2(b) and 3C1.2 (Reckless Endangerment during Flight). He
did not contest the applicability of 3A1.2(b), but argued that
USSG 3C1.2 alone should have been applied, and that applying both
sections constituted double counting. 272 F.3d at 223.
- 3 -
198 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (defendants attempt to pull gun
from waistband as officer tried to handcuff him posed risk of
serious bodily injury).
Clear error occurs when the court, upon reviewing the
record as a whole, is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.
United States v. Powell, 124
F.3d 655, 667 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. United
States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Although the
circumstances in this case are less egregious than those in other

decisions, we are satisfied that a circumstance where, as here, an
armed officer has a physical fight with an armed suspect he is
attempting to arrest, presents a risk of serious bodily injury. We
cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that
the adjustment was warranted.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court.
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
- 4 -

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

August 27, 2004

September 16, 2004

Before WIDENER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Royall

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

on appeal that the district court clearly erred in finding that, in

The two struggled and Richburgs gun fell to the ground.

The struggle continued, with the officer punching Richburg in the

At Richburgs sentencing, over his objection,

the district court determined that Richburg had assaulted the

assaulted the officer in a manner that created a risk of serious

bodily injury is reviewed for clear error.

Richburg argues that his conduct did not create a

accomplice shot at pursuing police officers,* id. at 222, and from

Sloley, 19 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 1994), in

which the defendant resisted arrest by struggling with the officer

circumstances alone that presented a risk of injury have been held

See United States v. Waldman, 310 F.3d

In Harrison, the appellant received adjustments under

United States v. Powell, 124

circumstances in this case are less egregious than those in other

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

You might also like