Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ademola JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-28
Citations: 22 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 01-4035
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ademola JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ademola JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4035.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 2001.
Decided Dec. 28, 2001.
Kenneth W. Ravenell, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, P.A., Balti more, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ademóla Jacobs pled guilty to Count 1 of the fifth superceding indictment which charged him with conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West 2000 & Supp. 2001). On appeal, he alleges that the district court should have sentenced him under the fraud section of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 2F1.1 (1998), rather than the money-laundering section, USSG § 2S1.1. Jacobs also alleges that he should have received a downward adjustment for being a minimal or minor participant in the scheme under USSG § 3B1.2. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we do not find that the district court erred in sentencing Jacobs under the money-laundering section of the Guidelines as he was indicted for and pled guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. See United States v. Davis, 202 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.) (stating review standard), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1236, 120 S.Ct. 2675, 147 L.Ed.2d 286 (2000); United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088, 1091 (4th Cir.1993) (same); USSG § 1B1.2(a).
Next, we do not find that the district court clearly erred by declining to find that Jacobs was a minor or minimal participant in the scheme under USSG § 3B1.2. See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 934-35 (4th Cir.1990) (stating review standard); United States v. Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 768-69 (4th Cir.1995) (defining minor or minimal participant).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.