United States v. Bailey

74 F. App'x 286

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Clayton Bailey was convicted of embezzling labor organization funds, or aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) (2000), and making a false statement of material fact on a labor organization report, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 439(b) (2000). Bailey appeals his convictions and sentence. We affirm.

First, Bailey asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We review this claim to determine whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Bailey’s claim is meritless. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, proved each element of Bailey’s offenses. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).

Second, Bailey asserts the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice, based on Bailey’s testimony regarding several deposits he made. We review a district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice for clear error. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1095 (4th Cir.1995). The district court did not clearly err in determining Bailey’s testimony was false on material matters or that it supported an enhancement for obstruction of justice. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(b)) (2002); United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 92-98, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993); United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425, 428 n. 2 (4th Cir.2002), ce rt. denied, 537 U.S. 1241, 123 S.Ct. 1372, 155 L.Ed.2d 211 (2003); United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 375 (4th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Bailey’s 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.