Court Opinion

ID: 991086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:31:33.358278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:36.813890
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4341

ALEX CRAWFORD GARRETT,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-966)

Submitted: December 10, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michelle S. Nelson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alex Crawford Garrett appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to
mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West 1996). The dis-
trict court sentenced Garrett to serve four months incarceration to be
followed by three years of supervised release and to pay a special
assessment fee of $50. As a special condition of supervised release,
Garrett was ordered to pay a fine of $2000 and make restitution in the
amount of $21,241. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stat-
ing that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gar-
rett was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has failed to do so. We affirm.

Garrett first contends that the total loss amount attributable to him
for sentencing purposes was less than $40,000, and so the district
court should have added four, rather than five levels to his base
offense level under USSG § 2F1.1(a),* to arrive at a final guidelines
range of six to twelve months. We have carefully reviewed the entire
record and conclude that the district court's finding that the total loss
amount was in excess of $40,000 was not clearly erroneous. United
States v. Dozie, 27 F.3d 95, 99 (4th Cir. 1994).

Garrett also maintains that the district court erred in ordering him
to pay $775 per month toward his fine and restitution because it failed
to consider that he would lose his job when incarcerated and thus his
ability to pay. Our review of the record shows that the district court
carefully weighed all appropriate factors when determining Garrett's
restitution repayment schedule. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(a) (West
1996); United States v. Molen, 9 F.3d 1084, 1086 (4th Cir. 1993),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3722 (U.S. May 2, 1994)
(No. 93-7805). We therefore find the district court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering Garrett to make $775 per month payments
toward his fine and restitution.
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, (Nov.
1995).

                     2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Garrett's
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for fur-
ther review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3