United States v. Daniels

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4202

STANLEY BOBBY DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-95-374)

Submitted: December 19, 1996

Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Joseph A. Balter, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Patricia A. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Bobby Daniels escaped from the Federal Prison Camp in Cumberland, Maryland, on August 25, 1995, and was sentenced to an additional eighteen months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in denying him a four-level reduction for escape from a non-secure facility similar to a community corrections center under USSG § 2P1.1(b)(3).* We affirm.

A four-level reduction in offense level should be given "if the defendant escaped from the non-secure custody of a community corrections center, community treatment center, `half-way house,' or similar facility." USSG § 2P1.1(b)(3). We have previously agreed with other circuits, however, that federal prison camps are not facilities which are similar to community corrections centers, community treatment centers, or halfway houses. See United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623, n.4 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Stalbaum, 63 F.3d 537, 540 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. McCullough, 53 F.3d 164, 164-65 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Cisneros-Garcia, 14 F.3d 41, 42 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tapia, 981 F.2d 1194, 1197-98 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993); United States v. Shaw, 979 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1992).

The sentence is affirmed. 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

_________________________________________________________________

*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1995).