Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. Crawford, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the appeal of Ra'Qwon La'Ricky Crawford's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed Crawford's sentence, finding that the district court did not commit clear error by denying Crawford a one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, as his guilty plea, entered on the day of trial, was untimely. The Court of Appeals examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Crawford, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the appeal of Ra'Qwon La'Ricky Crawford's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed Crawford's sentence, finding that the district court did not commit clear error by denying Crawford a one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, as his guilty plea, entered on the day of trial, was untimely. The Court of Appeals examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-4630

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the appeal of Ra'Qwon La'Ricky Crawford's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed Crawford's sentence, finding that the district court did not commit clear error by denying Crawford a one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, as his guilty plea, entered on the day of trial, was untimely. The Court of Appeals examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    United States v. Crawford, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the appeal of Ra'Qwon La'Ricky Crawford's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed Crawford's sentence, finding that the district court did not commit clear error by denying Crawford a one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, as his guilty plea, entered on the day of trial, was untimely. The Court of Appeals examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    RAQWON LARICKY CRAWFORD,
    a/k/a Raqwon Laricky Crawford,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 00-4630

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
    (CR-99-124-V)
    Submitted: May 10, 2001
    Decided: May 23, 2001
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Scott Haden Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    RaQwon LaRicky Crawford was convicted pursuant to his guilty
    plea of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Crawfords attorney
    has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
    738 (1967), alleging that the district court erred by denying Crawfords request for an additional one level downward adjustment under
    U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b)(2).1 Although advised of his right to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, Crawford has not done so. Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm.
    Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b)(2), a defendant is entitled to an
    additional one level reduction in his base offense level if he enters a
    timely guilty plea, thus allowing the Government to avoid the expense
    of preparing for trial. In the present case, the district court found that
    Crawfords guilty plea, entered on the day of trial, was untimely. We
    review the district courts decision for clear error and find none.2 The
    jury had already been selected and was waiting in the jury room to
    be seated. Such a "last minute" guilty plea is inconsistent with complete acceptance of responsibility.3
    We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
    the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    The 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 the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
    believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
    1

    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000).


    United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304, 1315 (4th Cir. 1994).
    3
    See United States v. Altier, 91 F.3d 953, 958-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a plea entered the day before trial was untimely).
    2

    UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD

    move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
    We therefore affirm Crawfords 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 aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like