United States v. Nixon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2006
• Docket: 05-4328
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIC NIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-04-131)

Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 16, 2006

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Eric Nixon appeals his conviction and sentence for

participation in a money laundering conspiracy involving drug sale

proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2000). Nixon’s

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no

meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding that such

allegations lacked merit, counsel asserts that the district court

erred in its determination of drug quantity attributable to Nixon,

and its failure to apply a reduction for acceptance of

responsibility. Although Nixon was notified of his right to file

a supplemental pro se brief, he did not do so. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the district

court erred in holding Nixon accountable for a greater quantity of

drugs than that to which he admitted. As the court’s finding was

based on the testimony of a co-conspirator and documentary

evidence, we find the court did not clearly err in this

determination. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210

(4th Cir. 1999) (providing standard).

Counsel also questions the court’s failure to apply a

reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The

district court declined to apply an acceptance of responsibility

reduction upon finding that Nixon committed an act of indecent

- 2 - exposure following his guilty plea. We find no clear error in this

ruling. See United States v. Kise, 369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir.

2004) (providing standard); United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34

(4th Cir. 1993) (upholding the denial of acceptance of

responsibility credit based on continued criminal conduct.)

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Nixon’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 -