Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 13-4407
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00023-JLK-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Christian
Omar
Beltran
was
convicted
by
jury
of
to
distribute
841(a)(1)
(2012)
during
in
and
marijuana,
(Count
furtherance
Two),
of
in
violation
and
possession
drug
of
of
trafficking
21
U.S.C.
firearm
crime,
in
Beltran
On
appeal,
he
to
support
his
contends
that
924(c)
there
was
insufficient
conviction
and
that
the
evidence
district
court
responsibility
3E1.1 (2012).
under
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
We affirm.
The jury
At
sentencing,
the
government
objected
to
the
calculation.
The
sentencing
court
sustained
the
objection.
Beltran
evidence
to
first
support
argues
his
that
924(c)
there
was
conviction.
insufficient
We
review
the
elements
of
the
crime
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 387 (4th Cir. 2012)
(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013).
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), the
government
must
prove
that
Beltran
(1)
used,
carried
or
or
crime
of
violence.
See
18
U.S.C.
924(c)(1)(A);
United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 565 (4th Cir. 2009).
Furtherance
under
924(c)
means
3
the
act
of
furthering,
701,
705
(4th
brackets omitted).
Cir.
2002)
(internal
quotation
marks
and
possession
(legitimate
or
illegal),
whether
the
gun
is
under
which
the
gun
is
found.
Id.
(internal
the
present
case,
Beltran
admitted
that
he
was
The
Whether
478
determination
F.3d
of
195,
whether
198
a
(4th
Cir.
defendant
2007),
is
but
the
to
the
entitled
(2012)
provides
for
two-level
reduction
for
We have
Cir.
2003)
quotation
marks
omitted).
An
18
of
sentencing
3E1.1.
judge
is
Hargrove,
in
478
unique
5
F.3d
at
position
201.
to
[T]he
evaluate
of
deference
review.
on
the
sentencing
Elliott,
judge
is
332
F.3d
entitled
at
761
to
great
(internal
quotations omitted).
Our examination of the record convinces us that the
district court did not misapprehend its authority to grant an
acceptance of responsibility reduction, but simply exercised its
discretion to decline to accept the adjustment recommended by
the probation officer.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED