United States v. Bobby Crews

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bobby Crews

570 F. App'x 345

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 2014

Docket13-4594

StatusUnpublished

This text of 570 F. App'x 345 (United States v. Bobby Crews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bobby Crews, 570 F. App'x 345 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Crews was confined at the Federal Prison Camp at Butner, North Carolina. On October 11, 2012 while Crews was part of an afternoon landscaping crew, he walked away from the camp and into the nearby woods. He was discovered missing and placed on escape status. On October 19, 2012, Crews was apprehended near Greensboro, North Carolina. Crews pled guilty to escape from federal custody and was sentenced to a term of twelve months’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time of his escape. Crews appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not reducing his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Pl.l(b)(3), which provides for a four-level reduction for escape from a non-secure community corrections center or similar facility. We affirm.

We review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623 (4th Cir.1994); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). Under the two- *346 pronged test adopted in Samo, the § 2Pl.l(b)(3) reduction applies if: (1) the escape is from a non-secure facility; and (2) the non-secure facility is “similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center or half-way house.” 24 F.3d at 623.

Crews does not qualify for a reduction under § 2P1.1(b)(3) because a prison camp is not “similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center or half-way house.” Id. at 623 & n. 4 (citing cases). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the reduction.

For these reasons, we affirm Crews’ twelve-month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Crews was confined at the Federal Prison Camp at Butner, North Carolina. On October 11, 2012 while Crews was part of an afternoon landscaping crew, he walked away from the camp and into the nearby woods. He was discovered missing and placed on escape status. On October 19, 2012, Crews was apprehended near Greensboro, North Carolina. Crews pled guilty to escape from federal custody and was sentenced to a term of twelve months’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time of his escape. Crews appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not reducing his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Pl.l(b)(3), which provides for a four-level reduction for escape from a non-secure community corrections center or similar facility. We affirm.

We review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623 (4th Cir.1994); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). Under the two- *346 pronged test adopted in Samo, the § 2Pl.l(b)(3) reduction applies if: (1) the escape is from a non-secure facility; and (2) the non-secure facility is “similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center or half-way house.” 24 F.3d at 623.

Crews does not qualify for a reduction under § 2P1.1(b)(3) because a prison camp is not “similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center or half-way house.” Id. at 623 & n. 4 (citing cases). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the reduction.

For these reasons, we affirm Crews’ twelve-month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 F. App'x 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bobby-crews-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack