United States v. Nixon ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERIC NIXON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-04-131)
Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 16, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eric Nixon appeals his conviction and sentence for
participation in a money laundering conspiracy involving drug sale
proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2000). Nixon’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding that such
allegations lacked merit, counsel asserts that the district court
erred in its determination of drug quantity attributable to Nixon,
and its failure to apply a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. Although Nixon was notified of his right to file
a supplemental pro se brief, he did not do so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the district
court erred in holding Nixon accountable for a greater quantity of
drugs than that to which he admitted. As the court’s finding was
based on the testimony of a co-conspirator and documentary
evidence, we find the court did not clearly err in this
determination. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210
(4th Cir. 1999) (providing standard).
Counsel also questions the court’s failure to apply a
reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The
district court declined to apply an acceptance of responsibility
reduction upon finding that Nixon committed an act of indecent
- 2 -
exposure following his guilty plea. We find no clear error in this
ruling. See United States v. Kise, 369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir.
2004) (providing standard); United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34
(4th Cir. 1993) (upholding the denial of acceptance of
responsibility credit based on continued criminal conduct.)
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Nixon’s conviction and sentence. 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 in this court 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 -