context: Finally, ReBrook appeals the district court's decision to increase his sentence for wire fraud because he was an "official holding a high-level decision-making or sensitive position," pursuant to U.S.S.G. SS 201.7(b)(1)(B). Because this question turns primarily on fact, we review the district court's application of SS 201.7(b)(1)(B) under the clearly erroneous standard.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 874 F.2d 213, 217-18
citation_a.parenthetical: where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply "clearly erroneous" standard
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir.1989) (where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply “clearly erroneous” standard); see also United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014, 1021 (4th Cir.1994) (applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. § 201.1(b)(2)(B), which provides offense level increase for payment made to influence any official in a high level decisionmaking or sensitive position).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 14 F.3d 1014, 1021
citation_b.parenthetical: applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. SS 201.1(b
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir.1989) (where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply “clearly erroneous” standard); see also United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014, 1021 (4th Cir.1994) (applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. § 201.1(b)(2)(B), which provides offense level increase for payment made to influence any official in a high level decisionmaking or sensitive position).