United States v. Coffey , 89 F. App'x 420 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELIZABETH COFFEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-01-36)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: March 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Franklin Mock, II, Mooresville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Brian S. Cromwell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Coffey appeals her convictions and twenty-seven
month sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and mail theft,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 371 (2000), and bank fraud and
aiding and abetting bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
1344 (2000). Counsel for Coffey has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Coffey was informed of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done
so. Counsel presents two issues for this Court’s review. Finding
no error, we affirm.
First, Coffey argues that the district court erred in
calculating the amount of loss attributable to her. The district
court’s determination of the amount of loss is a factual matter
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267,
1274 (4th Cir. 1995). Based on our review of the testimony
presented at trial, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err.
Next, Coffey asserts that district court erred in
applying an enhancement for use of a minor in the commission of the
crime. The district court’s finding that Coffey used a minor is a
factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Murphy,
254 F.3d 511, 513 (4th Cir. 2001). We conclude that the district
- 2 -
court did not clearly err in relying on the trial testimony that
Coffey used a minor to commit her crime.
Accordingly, we affirm Coffey’s convictions and sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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 such 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 -