United States v. Jones

94 F. App'x 181
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Jones. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 F. App'x 240
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 15, 2004·No. 03-4653·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Patti Ann Jones appeals her conviction and sentence following her guilty plea to one count of marriage fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1325(c) (2000), and one count of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of her right to submit a pro se supplemental brief, Jones has not done so.

Counsel presents for review the district court’s failure to depart downward pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.20, p.s. (2001), based on Jones’ family ties and responsibilities and her aberrant behavior. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to depart downward unless that refusal is based on the court’s mistaken belief that it lacked power to depart. United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238 (4th Cir.1999). The record shows that the district court knew that it had the authority to depart but concluded that such a departure was *182 not warranted. Therefore, this issue is not reviewable. United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338, 352-53 (4th Cir.2000).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Jones, 94 F. App'x 181 (4th Cir. 2004).

94 F. App'x 181 (United States v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)