United States v. Jones , 94 F. App'x 977 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4735
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.   Charles H. Haden II,
    District Judge. (CR-02-178)
    Submitted:    April 15, 2004                 Decided:   April 20, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for
    Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Karen B. George,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    John Jones appeals the district court’s order sentencing
    him to thirty-seven months of imprisonment following his guilty
    plea to one count of concealment of work while receiving social
    security benefits, in violation of 
    42 U.S.C. § 408
    (a)(4) (2000),
    and one count of fraudulent use of credit cards, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1029
    (a)(2), 2 (2000). Jones’ counsel filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising one
    issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
    grounds for appeal.
    Counsel suggests that the court may have erred in denying
    Jones an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The district
    court’s determination regarding acceptance of responsibility is
    factual, and we review it with great deference for clear error.
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) (2002);
    United States v. Ruhe, 
    191 F.3d 376
    , 388 (4th Cir. 1999).          Our
    review of the record convinces us that the district court did not
    err in concluding that Jones had not demonstrated acceptance of
    responsibility.
    In his pro se brief, Jones essentially repeats counsel’s
    argument   regarding   acceptance   of   responsibility.   Jones   also
    asserts that he provided assistance to the Government, before and
    after his sentencing in the instant case, in the investigation of
    other crimes.   To the extent that we construe these assertions as
    - 2 -
    alleging that he was improperly denied a downward departure from
    his Guidelines range based upon substantial assistance, we note
    that Jones did not raise this issue before the district court and
    does not assert that any failure by the Government to move for a
    departure was based upon an improper motive.    See Wade v. United
    States, 
    504 U.S. 181
     (1992).    Accordingly, we find this argument
    does not entitle Jones to any relief.
    We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and
    find no meritorious issues.    We therefore affirm the judgment of
    the district court.    This court requires that counsel inform his
    client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
    the United States for further review.   If the client requests that
    a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
    would be frivolous, then counsel may move for leave to withdraw
    from representation.    Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
    thereof was served on the client.   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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4735

Citation Numbers: 94 F. App'x 977

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/20/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023