United States v. Hollins , 112 F. App'x 280 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4405
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDWARD BROWN HOLLINS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-03-49)
    Submitted:   October 13, 2004              Decided:   October 27, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan Fittro, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Brown Hollins, Jr., appeals his eighty-four-month
    sentence imposed after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting the
    distribution of .35 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2004), and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (2000).    We dismiss the appeal.
    Hollins   contends       that,    because   his    criminal   history
    category overstated the seriousness of his prior crimes, the
    district   court   erred     in    denying    his    motion   for   a    downward
    departure.    “We are not permitted to review a district court’s
    refusal to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines unless
    the district court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked
    the authority to depart.”         United States v. Shaw, 
    313 F.3d 219
    , 222
    (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Our review of the record convinces us that the district court was
    aware of its authority to depart but declined to do so because the
    facts did not warrant a departure.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.                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.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4405

Citation Numbers: 112 F. App'x 280

Judges: Niemeyer, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 10/27/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024