United States v. Jaimez , 207 F. App'x 324 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEDRO JAIMEZ, a/k/a Salbador Pineda-Palacios,
a/k/a Celso Pineda, a/k/a Celso Pineda-
Valdovinos,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00294-WLO)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Jaimez, a/k/a Salbador Pineda-Palacios, a/k/a Celso
Pineda, a/k/a Celso Pineda-Valdovinos appeals his conviction and
105-month sentence for illegal reentry of a previously-deported
aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and
(b)(2)(2000). Jaimez’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erred by imposing a sentence within the guidelines.
Specifically, counsel questions the district court’s application of
an enhancement for obstructing justice and the denial of the
acceptance of responsibility deduction. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 (“USSG”). The Government did
not file a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so,
Jaimez did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Jaimez avers that the district court erred in enhancing
his offense level for obstruction of justice. Jaimez provided the
court and the probation officer with two different true names. By
supplying an incorrect name, Jaimez “provid[ed] materially false
information” to either the court or the probation officer. See
USSG §§ 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(f) and (h)). It is irrelevant that
Jaimez derived no advantage from providing this false information.
- 2 -
The district court properly enhanced Jaimez’s sentence for
obstructing justice.
Jaimez also contends that he was improperly denied at
least a two-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility
because he did accept responsibility for his actions by pleading
guilty. A defendant is usually not eligible for the acceptance of
responsibility downward adjustment under USSG § 3E1.1 when he
receives an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice under USSG
§ 3C1.1. See United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir.
1995). Jaimez provided the court and the probation officer with
two different true names, actions that are clearly inconsistent
with accepting responsibility. The district court did not err by
denying him the adjustment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Jaimez’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Jaimez, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Jaimez 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 Jaimez.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -