Court Opinion

ID: 1001551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:57:17.6904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:58.697546
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4821

JAMES ALEXANDER SMITH, III,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
G. Ross Anderson, District Judge.
(CR-99-269)

Submitted: April 20, 2000

Decided: May 12, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold W.
Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

James A. Smith appeals from a sentence of twenty-seven months'
imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea for possession with
intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(1994). Smith's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but addresses the following issue:
whether the district court's denial of an additional one-level down-
ward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentenc-
ing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b)(2) (1998) constituted clear error.
Although advised of his right to do so, Smith has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.

A court may reduce by two levels the offense level of a defendant
who "clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his
offense." USSG § 3E1.1(a). A three-level reduction is available under
§ 3E1.1(b) to a defendant who (1) timely provides complete informa-
tion to the government about his own involvement in the offense, or
(2) timely notifies the government that he intends to plead guilty, thus
saving the government the effort of trial preparation and also saving
the court's time. The district court's denial of a reduction under
§ 3E1.1 cannot be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Cusack, 901 F.2d 29, 31 (4th Cir. 1990).

We have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the
arguments presented by both parties, and the district court's reasoning
in its denial of the additional one-level downward adjustment, and
find no clear error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, we
affirm Smith's sentence.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
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-

                    2
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