Court Opinion

ID: 992055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:46:15.011375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:40:04.983933
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4817

ANTONELLA KEYS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-504)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: May 1, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-
ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Antonella Keys was convicted pursuant to her guilty
plea of one count of making false statements to a bank in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (1994). Keys' counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging whether the
district court was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the
amount of loss attributable to her and for not granting her a downward
adjustment for being a minor participant.* Finding no error, we
affirm.

Keys was part of a scheme in which counterfeit MasterCards, with
legitimate account numbers but fictitious names, were used to obtain
cash advances from banks in South Carolina. Keys' role in the
scheme was to go into the banks and obtain the money. The presen-
tence report calculated the amount of loss between $120,000 and
$200,000.

We find that the district court was not clearly erroneous in its deter-
mination as to the amount of loss attributable to Keys or by refusing
to grant a downward adjustment for being a minor participant. Keys
bore the burden of showing that the amount of loss contained in the
presentence report was inaccurate, which she admitted she could not
do. See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). Fur-
thermore, while Keys may have only been responsible for a small
fraction of the losses incurred by banks due to fraud nationwide, the
district court properly found that she was not a minor participant in
this particular scheme.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
The court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
_________________________________________________________________
*Keys has also filed a pro se supplemental brief in which she asks this
court to order that she be placed on home detention, rather than in a half-
way house, following her release. Since such action is within the discre-
tion of the district court, we decline to grant the requested relief.

                    2
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 affirm the district court's judgment order. 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

                    3