US v. Jaimez

Filing 920061128

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO JAIMEZ, a/k/a Salbador Pineda-Palacios, a/k/a Celso Pineda, a/k/a Celso PinedaValdovinos, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00294-WLO) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pedro Jaimez, a/k/a Salbador Pineda-Palacios, a/k/a Celso Pineda, a/k/a Celso Pineda-Valdovinos appeals his conviction and 105-month sentence for illegal reentry of a previously-deported aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2)(2000). Jaimez's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred by imposing a sentence within the guidelines. Specifically, counsel questions the district court's application of an enhancement for obstructing justice and the denial of the acceptance of responsibility deduction. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 ("USSG"). The Government did not file a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Jaimez did not file a pro se supplemental brief. reversible error, we affirm. Jaimez avers that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice. Jaimez provided the By Finding no court and the probation officer with two different true names. supplying an incorrect name, Jaimez "provid[ed] materially false information" to either the court or the probation officer. USSG 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(f) and (h)). See It is irrelevant that Jaimez derived no advantage from providing this false information. - 2 - The district court properly enhanced Jaimez's sentence for obstructing justice. Jaimez also contends that he was improperly denied at least a two-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility because he did accept responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty. A defendant is usually not eligible for the acceptance of responsibility downward adjustment under USSG 3E1.1 when he receives an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1. 1995). See United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir. Jaimez provided the court and the probation officer with two different true names, actions that are clearly inconsistent with accepting responsibility. denying him the adjustment. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Jaimez's conviction and sentence. We The district court did not err by This court requires that counsel inform Jaimez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jaimez 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 Jaimez. - 3 - 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 - 4 -

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?