United States v. Kenyan D. Pitchford

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 12, 1999
Docket98-3801
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Kenyan D. Pitchford (United States v. Kenyan D. Pitchford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Kenyan D. Pitchford, (8th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 98-3801 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Kenyan Pitchford, also known as * Leslie Elian McClure, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: October 6, 1999

Filed: October 12, 1999 ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenyan Pitchford pleaded guilty to one count of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Over Mr. Pitchford’s objection, the district court1 applied a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1997) because Mr. Pitchford had provided a false name and date of birth to the magistrate

1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. judge2 at his initial appearance. On appeal, Mr. Pitchford argues that the court erred in applying this enhancement because he corrected the information at his next court appearance and did not hinder the prosecution of his case.

We conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. See United States v. St. James, 38 F.3d 987, 988 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review; enhancement applies to providing materially false information to judge or magistrate, regardless of whether it significantly hinders investigation or prosecution of offense; defendant’s identity is material).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

2 The Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Kenyan D. Pitchford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kenyan-d-pitchford-ca8-1999.