United States v. Cooper , 34 F. App'x 437 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-4628
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CAROLE LUCILLE COOPER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
    District Judge. (CR-00-262)
    Submitted:   April 25, 2002                    Decided:   May 2, 2002
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carl J. Dascoli, Jr., MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICES, Charleston,
    West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
    Miller A. Bushong, III, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Carole Lucille Cooper pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
    money laundering, 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1956
    (h) (West 2000), and was
    sentenced to a term of seventy months imprisonment.   Cooper seeks
    to appeal her sentence, arguing that the district court erred in
    declining to depart below the guideline range on the ground that
    the number of criminal history points she had accumulated over-
    represented the seriousness of her prior criminal conduct.    U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (2000).
    A defendant may not appeal the sentencing court’s decision not
    to depart below the guideline unless the court’s decision resulted
    from an erroneous belief that it lacked the authority to depart.
    United States v. Bayerle, 
    898 F.2d 28
    , 31 (4th Cir. 1990).   Here,
    the district court acknowledged that it had the authority to depart
    under § 4A1.3, but determined that a departure was not appropriate.
    We therefore dismiss the appeal.      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.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4628

Citation Numbers: 34 F. App'x 437

Judges: Hamilton, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 5/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023