US v. Scott
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN JONIMICHAEL SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00342-TLW)
December 12, 2007
December 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Brian Jonimichael Scott pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). Scott was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. Finding
no error, we affirm. On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contending (1) the district court wrongly denied and Scott (2) an adjustment district for acceptance sentence of was
Scott was advised of his right to file a pro se In his pro se brief,
supplemental brief, which he elected to do.
Scott questions whether his federal conviction wrongly violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because he was convicted for the same conduct in state court. In addition, Scott raises some of the same The Government elected
concerns raised in counsel's Anders brief. not to file a responsive brief.
Scott questions whether the district court wrongly denied an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Our court reviews
a district court's decision to grant or deny an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility for clear error. United States v.
May, 359 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir. 2002). The determination of the
- 2 -
district court is due great deference.
United States v. Dugger,
485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.5 (2005)). The burden is on the defendant to establish by a of the evidence that he is entitled to the
United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238-
39 (4th Cir. 1989). The record shows Scott engaged in further criminal
conduct after the indictment and that he was released from a drug treatment program as a result. Among the factors for a district
court to consider in determining whether an adjustment is warranted are "voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations" and "post-offense rehabilitative efforts." USSG §
3E1.1, cmts. n.1(b) and (g). Scott's continued drug use subsequent to his conviction warranted denial of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th
Cir. 1994); United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336, 1339 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we find the district court's decision to
deny Scott an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous. Scott also questions whether his sentence is reasonable, but he offers no basis for this contention. The record shows the
district court appropriately calculated the advisory guideline range and considered it in conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). See United
- 3 -
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). end of the applicable Scott's sentence, which is at the bottom guidelines range and well within the
statutory maximum, is therefore reasonable.
See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007). Lastly, Scott questions whether his federal and state convictions for the same conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. offense A "central feature of double jeopardy's definition of is the `dual sovereignty doctrine.' Applying this
doctrine, the Supreme Court has continually held that federal and state crimes are not the same offense, no matter how identical the conduct they proscribe." United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, Accordingly, Scott's
196 (4th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). argument is without merit.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined Scott's entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court's judgment. We therefore
This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scott
requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
- 4 -
court for leave to withdraw from representation.
must state that a copy thereof was served on Scott. 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.
- 5 -
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?