UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUDITH C. BAKER, a/k/a Judy Baker,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-132)
Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Judith C. Baker pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute oxycodone and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but addressing whether Baker’s
sentence was cruel and unusual punishment because of her age and
poor health and whether the district court erred in not giving her
credit for acceptance of responsibility. Baker was informed of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. The
Government did not file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
We find there was no error with respect to the court’s
decision not to decrease Baker’s offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. Baker’s offense level was enhanced because of
obstruction of justice as a result of her not appearing for her
first sentencing hearing and because she was charged with other
offenses while on bond. “Conduct resulting in an enhancement under
§ 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice)
ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted
responsibility for his criminal conduct.” USSG § 3E1.1, comment.
(n.4); see United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir.
1995) (holding that finding of obstruction supports the denial of
acceptance of responsibility reduction).
- 2 -
We further find there was no error in Baker’s sentence.
Because she was sentenced within the properly calculated guidelines
range of imprisonment, it is reasonable. United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 456-57 (4th Cir. 2006).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
in this case and found no error. Accordingly, we affirm Baker’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel inform Baker,
in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If she requests a petition be
filed, but counsel believes 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 Baker. 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 -