US v. Canipe, (4th Cir. 2004)

Docket Number:03-4245
 
CONTENT

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4245 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

NORMA FAYE CANIPE, a/k/a Norma Pritt, a/k/a

Lora Pritt, a/k/a Norma Brown, a/k/a Laura

Pritt, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Charles H. Haden II,

District Judge. (CR-02-130)

Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David O. Schles, STOWERS & ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Susan M. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Norma Faye Canipe appeals her 175-month sentence pursuant to her guilty plea to aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343 (2000), and being a felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On

appeal, Canipe asserts the district court erred in denying her a

downward adjustment to her offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. A district courtÂ’s determination of whether a

defendant is entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility is factual, and is reviewed for clear error. United

States v. Ruhe

, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). CanipeÂ’s claim is meritless. CanipeÂ’s false statements to investigating

authorities preclude a finding that the district court erred by

failing to grant Canipe an adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 3E1.1(a)-(b) (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm CanipeÂ’s conviction and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED