United States v. Jacobs
United States v. Jacobs
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRED JACOBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-91-57-BO, CA-96-28-7-BO)
Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
his motion brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2255(1994), amended by Anti- terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132,
110 Stat. 1214. We affirm.
Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in
violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846(1994). He now claims that the prose-
cutor entered false evidence regarding previous crimes, resulting
in his being improperly sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 4B1.1 (1992).
Notwithstanding the possibility that Appellant has waived his right
to attack his sentence, we find that his claim is meritless. Ac-
cording to the information contained in Appellant's pre-sentence report, Appellant was over the age of eighteen when he committed
the instant drug offense and he had two prior offenses fitting the
categories prescribed by § 4B1.1 as defined by § 4B1.2. According- ly, we find that he was properly sentenced as a career offender and
that the prosecution presented no false evidence of his prior
offenses. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of his
motion. 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished