US v. Jaimez

Filing 920061128

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -