Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Gene BENNETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-26
Citations: 22 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 01-4612
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Gene BENNETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Gene BENNETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4612.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2001.
Decided Dec. 26, 2001.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Lewis Gene Bennett, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to one count of passing and uttering counterfeit currency and one count of possession of counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 472 (West 2000). He was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and three years of supervised re lease on each count, to run concurrently, and $440 in restitution.
Bennett argues the district court erred when it applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1(b)(2) (2000) to enhance his sentence. Section 2B5.1(b)(2) provides for an offense level enhancement for a defendant who manufactured or produced counterfeit currency or possessed devices or materials used to counterfeit currency. This guideline, however, "does not apply to persons who merely photocopy notes or otherwise produce items that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny." USSG § 2B5.1(b)(2), comment, (n. 4); see United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 76 (4th Cir. 1996).
We review the district court's legal determinations de novo and findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Williams, 253 F.3d 789, 791-92 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Bennett'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.