United States v. Ripley ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-4283
PAUL H. RIPLEY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-96-76-AW)
Submitted: March 31, 1998
Decided: April 30, 1998
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Paul F. Kemp, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat-
taglia, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Assistant United
States Attorney, Brent J. Gurney, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Paul H. Ripley, Jr., pled guilty to tax evasion, see 26 U.S.C. § 7201(1994), and was sentenced to a term of ten months incarceration. Rip-
ley's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but indicating that,
in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Ripley has
been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed a brief. After a thorough review of the record, we
affirm.*
Ripley's attorney asserts that the district court may have clearly
erred in denying his client an adjustment for acceptance of responsi-
bility, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1990). How-
ever, he acknowledges that, while Ripley admitted failing to file a tax
return in 1991 and causing his employer to file a false Internal Reve-
nue form W-4, he refused to admit that he owed any tax for that year.
To earn a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, a defendant must
admit guilty intent as well as the acts committed. See United States
v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1280 (4th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the district
court did not clearly err in denying Ripley the adjustment.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We note that the plea agreement
specified that the 1990 Guidelines Manual would be used to avoid an
ex post facto problem. See United States v. Morrow, 925 F.2d 779,
782-83 (4th Cir. 1991). The applicable guideline, USSG § 2T4.1 (tax
loss table) was amended in 1993 to increase deterrence for tax
offenses and the offense level for Ripley's offense would have been
_________________________________________________________________
*Ripley was released from custody in February 1998. Because the
Anders appeal implicates the validity of his guilty plea, the appeal is not
moot.
2
higher under the 1995 guideline. In the presentence report, the proba-
tion officer stated that the 1995 guidelines were applied; however, the
lower offense level was used, indicating that the 1990 guideline was
actually applied.
We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to peti-
tion 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 conten-
tions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3