UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4343
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID JAMES GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-02-1177)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: March 3, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert J. Harte, ROBERT J. HARTE, P.C., Aiken, South Carolina, for
Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney,
Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David James Graham pled guilty to two counts of
possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a) (2000). The district court sentenced
him to concurrent fifty-seven-month prison terms on each count.
Graham’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he raises the
issues of whether the district court complied with Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Graham’s guilty
plea, and whether the district court erred in denying Graham an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Graham has filed a
pro se supplemental brief asserting that he was entitled to an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we
conclude that the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Graham’s guilty plea. Turning
to the sentencing issue, the district court’s determination
regarding acceptance of responsibility is factual, and we review it
with great deference for clear error. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) (2002); United States v. Ruhe, 191
F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
Graham assaulted another inmate while awaiting
sentencing. In deciding whether a defendant has accepted
responsibility, the district court may consider whether he has
voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct. See
USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)). In light of the intervening
assault, the district court did not clearly err in denying the
reduction. See United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir.
1993) (finding that defendant’s continued criminal conduct is
inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Graham’s conviction and sentence.
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. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
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 -