Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Freeman, 4th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Freeman, 4th Cir. (2004)
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4064
Decided:
December 9, 2004
PER CURIAM:
Leslie Fountresa Freeman appeals her convictions and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000), and importation of
500 grams or more of cocaine into the United States under 21 U.S.C.
952(a) (2000).
On July 26, 2002, Freeman arrived in Charlotte, North
Carolina, from Montego Bay, Jamaica. After going through an initial
inspection with the customs agent, Freeman was sent for a secondary
inspection because she appeared to be nervous.
A search of her
questioned
regarding
the
cocaine
and
gave
inconsistent
when she told the customs agent that Antwan Freeman had purchased
her ticket.
At the close of the Governments case, Freeman moved for
a
judgment
of
acquittal,
asserting
that
the
evidence
was
- 2 -
on both counts.
At
sentencing,
the
district
court
sustained
the
- 3 -
60,
80
(1942).
[S]ubstantial
evidence
is
evidence
that
Id. at 873.
An intent to distribute
575
F.2d
524
(5th
Cir.
1978)
(holding
that
Freeman appeared to
- 4 -
of the person who paid for her ticket, and gave evasive answers.
Freemans only argument on appeal is that the evidence at trial,
showing the drug quantity to be 386 grams, varied from the facts in
the indictment, alleging more than 500 grams of cocaine.
However,
(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Schnabel, 939 F.2d 197, 203 (4th
Cir. 1991).
maintains
that
the
district
court
erred
in
U.S.
factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and its application
of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).
United States v.
- 5 -
U.S.
87
(1993),
concluded
that
an
obstruction
of
justice
USSG 3C1.1,
United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425, 428 n.2 (4th Cir.
2002) (citing Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 92-98), cert. denied, 537 U.S.
1241 (2003).
Because not every accused who testifies at trial and is
convicted is subject to the sentencing enhancement, a district court
- 6 -
must review the evidence and make the independent findings necessary
to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice, or
an attempt to do the same.
When making
States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. 1997) (requiring the
district court to address each element of the alleged perjury in a
separate finding or make a global finding that encompasses each
factual predicate for a perjury finding).
We first agree with the district court that Freeman received
adequate notice of the enhancement as required by Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.
Defense
counsel
was
first
notified
of
the
Governments
At sentencing,
the district court gave defense counsel and the defendant the
opportunity to be heard on the enhancement.
At sentencing, the court did not expressly address the three
elements required for an obstruction of justice enhancement. Rather,
the court stated that Freemans case required an obstruction of
- 7 -
justice enhancement because she took the stand and denied any
involvement in any criminal activity.
cocaine,
we
uphold
the
district
courts
finding
of
also United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 671 (4th Cir. 2001).
We therefore deny Freemans request for appointment of new
counsel and affirm her convictions and sentence.
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
- 8 -