UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-02-178)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Karen B. George,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Jones appeals the district court’s order sentencing
him to thirty-seven months of imprisonment following his guilty
plea to one count of concealment of work while receiving social
security benefits, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4) (2000),
and one count of fraudulent use of credit cards, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2), 2 (2000). Jones’ counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one
issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal.
Counsel suggests that the court may have erred in denying
Jones an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. 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). Our
review of the record convinces us that the district court did not
err in concluding that Jones had not demonstrated acceptance of
responsibility.
In his pro se brief, Jones essentially repeats counsel’s
argument regarding acceptance of responsibility. Jones also
asserts that he provided assistance to the Government, before and
after his sentencing in the instant case, in the investigation of
other crimes. To the extent that we construe these assertions as
- 2 -
alleging that he was improperly denied a downward departure from
his Guidelines range based upon substantial assistance, we note
that Jones did not raise this issue before the district court and
does not assert that any failure by the Government to move for a
departure was based upon an improper motive. See Wade v. United
States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992). Accordingly, we find this argument
does not entitle Jones to any relief.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and
find no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of
the district court. 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 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 -