Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

11-6-2002 USA v. Williams Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2308

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Williams" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 705. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/705

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 01-2308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, Appellant ____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Crim No. 00-cr-00366-1 ) District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 1, 2002 Before: NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,* District Judge.

Filed: November 6, 2002 ____________ OPINION

____________________________ * The Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a one count indictment charging him with selling counterfeit United States currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. During an interview with a probation officer following the plea, defendant gave an incorrect name, social security number, and birthdate. In addition, defendant falsely denied having a prior criminal record.

At sentencing, the district judge applied an obstruction of justice enhancement, denied a reduction because of acceptance of responsibility, and imposed a period of twelve months incarceration.

On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders brief, which we have carefully reviewed along with the other matters of record. Defendant did not file a pro se brief.

We conclude that the District Court did not err. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

The motion of defense counsel to withdraw will be granted.

______________________________ TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing Opinion.

/s/ Joseph F. Weis, Jr. United States Circuit Judge