United States v. Charles Boggs

693 F. App'x 355

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2017
• Docket: 16-11504 Summary Calendar
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Boggs appeals the 240-month sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to. distribute a controlled substance. First, he contends that the district court clearly erred in imposing the U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. The district court had a reliable basis on which to plausibly find a spatial and temporal connection between Boggs’s firearm possession and drug-trafficking activity. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501, 507 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that he possessed a dangerous weapon. See United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014).

Next, Boggs contends that the district court clearly erred in imposing the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for obstruction of justice. “We may affirm an enhancement on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 314 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court’s findings that Boggs solicited and submitted a false letter from a codefendant to try to reduce his sentence plausibly supported its ultimate conclusion that he obstructed justice. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008); § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(F)). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Boggs obstructed justice. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208.

Lastly, Boggs contends that the district court’s denial of the U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility was without foundation. The district court’s finding that Boggs falsely denied that he possessed a firearm was not without foundation given the statements of his coconspirators. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not without foundation because Boggs falsely denied relevant conduct. See id.; ,§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.l(A)).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir, R; 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.