Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 09-5189
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00160-1)
Submitted:
September 8, 2010
Decided:
October 7, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Robert Laver Padgett pleaded guilty to one count of
escape,
in
sentenced
violation
to
24
of
18
months
U.S.C.
751(a)
imprisonment.
(2006),
On
appeal,
and
was
Padgett
offense
reduction
under
United
States
Sentencing
We accordingly affirm.
1998,
Padgett
possess
and
months
imprisonment.
transferred
distribute
from
the
was
crack
On
convicted
cocaine
and
January
Bureau
of
of
sentenced
14,
Prisons
conspiracy
2009,
to
to
to
188
Padgett
was
Bannum
Place,
that
requested
and
he
was
accompany
granted
him
to
permission
the
to
dayroom,
use
the
Padgett
restroom.
As the
One of the
Marshals pursued Padgett and caught up with him after both men
slid down an embankment.
taken
back
to
Bannum
Place
without
Padgett was
further
incident.
was
charged
with
one
count
of
escape,
calculated
history
category
base
offense
III.
The
level
PSR
in
of
then
13,
with
recommended
a
a
The
criminal
two-level
reduction
2P1.1(b)(3)
facility.
and
under
because
U.S.
Padgett
Sentencing
escaped
Guidelines
from
Manual
non-secure
the
officer
agreed,
removing
that
four-level
reduction.
At sentencing, the district court declined to give the
two-level
reduction
for
acceptance
of
responsibility.
The
advisory
imprisonment.
Guidelines
After
sentence
and
district
court
range
permitting
hearing
18
argument
statement
sentenced
as
Padgett
from
to
24
to
on
24
an
months
appropriate
Padgett
himself,
the
months
imprisonment.
appeal,
Padgett
argues
that
the
district
court
significantly
deferential
outside
the
Guidelines
abuse-of-discretion
range,
standard.
we
Gall
apply
v.
United
Id.
sentence
United
imposed
States
(quoting
Gall,
improperly
v.
under
564
Carter,
552
U.S.
calculated
an
at
abuse-of-discretion
F.3d
51).
guidelines
325,
A
328
(4th
sentence
range
standard.
will
Cir.
based
be
2009)
on
an
found
We
review
district
Guidelines de novo.
214,
217
ordinary
(4th
of
interpretation
2009).
In
statutory
interpreting
construction
the
Guideline
the
Guidelines,
apply.
its
plain
meaning,
as
United
See
of
Cir.
rules
courts
Thus, we
determined
by
Id.
(quoting United States v. Horton, 321 F.3d 476, 479 (4th Cir.
2003)).
We
also
Guideline,
which
examine
is
the
commentary
authoritative
unless
accompanying
it
violates
a
the
erroneous
reading
of,
that
guideline.
Stinson
v.
States
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
2P1.1
similar
commentary
facility.
provides
that
Id.
2P1.1(b)(3).
non-secure
The
custody
Guidelines
means
custody
appeal,
2P1.1(b)(3),
he
Padgett
qualifies
argues
for
the
that
by
the
reduction
terms
because
of
Bannum
we
with
the
district
court.
Secure
custody
in
the
custody
of
an
armed
guard,
or
otherwise
United States v.
Pratt, 568 F.3d 11, 22 n.10 (1st Cir. 2009); see also United
States v. Piccolo, 441 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting
[w]hile an escapee who flees a secured facility or the custody
of an armed guard presents a serious risk of injury to himself
and others, the same cannot be said for an escapee who leaves a
halfway
house
with
permission
and
fails
to
return).
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED