Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly Denise POOLE, a/k/a Kimberly Corbett, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-11
Citations: 29 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 01-4669
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly Denise POOLE, a/k/a Kimberly Corbett, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 29
Pages: 140–140

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly Denise POOLE, a/k/a Kimberly Corbett, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4669.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
Decided Feb. 11, 2002.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kimberly Denise Poole appeals her twenty-one month sentence for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Poole claims only that the district court erred by denying her a reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2000). We review a district court's determination as to whether a defendant is entitled to such a reduction with great deference for clear error. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.1996).
Because there was evidence that Poole failed to appear at her sentencing hearing and moved without notifying her federal probation officer, in violation of her conditions of release, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in its determination. A defendant who pleads guilty and truthfully admits her conduct may still lose the adjustment through other conduct that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 3).
Accordingly, we affirm Poole's conviction and sentence. 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.