UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4858
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CYNTHIA M. LOVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-188)
Submitted: June 26, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Joshua C. Hanks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cynthia Love appeals the forty-two-month sentence imposed
by the district court after she pled guilty to aiding and abetting
retaliation against an informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1513(b), 2 (2000).* Love’s counsel filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether this
court should reconsider the decision in United States v. Cross, 371
F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Love contends that the district court erred by
determining her base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2X3.1(a) (2004), because the court held her accountable
for relevant conduct relating to the underlying offense about which
she did not know or could not have reasonably known. In Cross, 371
F.3d at 182, we rejected this contention. Although Love urges us
to reconsider our holding in Cross, “a panel of this court cannot
overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior
panel of this court.” Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d
264, 271-72 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In sentencing Love, the district court considered the
properly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors listed
*
Although the pro se notice of appeal was not received by the
district court within the appeal period, it was timely under Fed.
R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). The sentence imposed was within the
ten-year statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b), and four
months below the properly-calculated advisory guideline range.
Additionally, the sentence was selected pursuant to a reasoned
process in accordance with the law. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006). For these reasons, we conclude that
Love’s sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Love’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Love, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Love
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 Love.
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 -