Court Opinion

ID: 993988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:16:14.501671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:38.535191
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 97-4549

PAMELA S. KNOWLTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.
(CR-97-19)

Submitted: January 13, 1998

Decided: January 23, 1998

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S. Mason Preston, PRESTON & WEESE, L.C., Lewisburg, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Susan
M. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pamela S. Knowlton appeals from the four-month sentence
imposed by the district court upon her guilty plea to one count of
bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1994). Knowlton's only claim on
appeal is that the sentence was unduly harsh in light of the nature of
her offense and history. We affirm.

In an effort to avoid an outstanding medical bill, Knowlton submit-
ted a fraudulent bankruptcy court order to the collection agency han-
dling the debt showing that she had been granted a discharge in
bankruptcy. When contacted by the FBI, Knowlton admitted that she
had changed the date, debtors' names and case number in order to
avoid her debt. Knowlton pled guilty to bankruptcy fraud in February
1997. At her sentencing hearing, Knowlton stated no objections to the
presentence report. The guideline range for Knowlton's offense, after
taking into account a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsi-
bility,* was zero to six months imprisonment. The district court
imposed a term of four months. Knowlton appeals, claiming that the
district court acted arbitrarily in imposing a term of imprisonment
rather than home confinement or probation.

Because Knowlton's sentence fell within a properly calculated
guideline range, her challenge to the sentence is not cognizable on
appeal. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir.
1990) (holding that criminal defendant is precluded from seeking "re-
view of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence anywhere
within a proplery calculated sentencing range"); see also United
States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (challenge to sen-
tence at top of guideline range not authorized by statute).

Accordingly, we affirm Knowlton's 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
_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995).

                    2