United States v. Jones , 94 F. App'x 181 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4653
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATTI ANN JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-1065)
Submitted: March 26, 2004 Decided: April 15, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gordon McBride, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James
Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina; Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patti Ann Jones appeals her conviction and sentence
following her guilty plea to one count of marriage fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1325(c) (2000), and one count of
conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (2000). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of her right
to submit a pro se supplemental brief, Jones has not done so.
Counsel presents for review the district court’s failure
to depart downward pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5K2.20, p.s. (2001), based on Jones’ family ties and
responsibilities and her aberrant behavior. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to depart
downward unless that refusal is based on the court’s mistaken
belief that it lacked power to depart. United States v. Edwards,
188 F.3d 230, 238 (4th Cir. 1999). The record shows that the
district court knew that it had the authority to depart but
concluded that such a departure was not warranted. Therefore, this
issue is not reviewable. United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338,
352-53 (4th Cir. 2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her
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 -