United States v. Nichols ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LASHANDA DENISE NICHOLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-288)
Submitted: July 9, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lashanda Denise Nichols appeals the district court’s order
sentencing her to fifty-eight months imprisonment following her
guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (2000). Nichols’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of her
right to do so, Nichols has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Counsel suggests that the court may have erred in denying
Nichols an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on her
unrelated criminal conduct. The district court’s determination
regarding acceptance of responsibility is factual, and we review it
with great deference for clear error. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) (2000); United States v. Ruhe, 191
F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999).
It is undisputed that Nichols was arrested for committing new
criminal offenses after being released on bond for the instant
offense. The district court may consider whether a defendant has
voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct in
deciding whether she has accepted responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.1(b)). In light of Nichols’ intervening arrest, the
district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. See
United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993) (finding that
2
defendant’s continued criminal conduct is inconsistent with
acceptance of responsibility).
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and find
no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time.
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 renew his motion 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