US v. Love

Filing 920060706


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4858 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYNTHIA M. LOVE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-03-188) Submitted: June 26, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cynthia Love appeals the forty-two-month sentence imposed by the district court after she pled guilty to aiding and abetting retaliation against an informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513(b), 2 (2000).* Love's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether this court should reconsider the decision in United States v. Cross, 371 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2004). Love contends We affirm. that the district court erred by determining her base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2X3.1(a) (2004), because the court held her accountable for relevant conduct relating to the underlying offense about which she did not know or could not have reasonably known. F.3d at 182, we rejected this contention. In Cross, 371 Although Love urges us to reconsider our holding in Cross, "a panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court." Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In sentencing Love, the district court considered the properly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors listed Although the pro se notice of appeal was not received by the district court within the appeal period, it was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - * in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2000). The sentence imposed was within the ten-year statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. 1513(b), and four months below the properly-calculated advisory guideline range. Additionally, the sentence was selected pursuant to a reasoned process in accordance with the law. F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Green, 436 For these reasons, we conclude that Love's sentence was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Love's conviction and sentence. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Love, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Love 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 Love. 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?