United States of America v. Larry Russell Brickle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4304
LARRY RUSSELL BRICKLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-98-422)
Submitted: September 14, 2000
Decided: October 6, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Larry Russell Brickle appeals from his twenty-one month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to felony failure to pay child sup-
port in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 228(a)(3) (West 2000). On appeal,
Brickle attacks the sentencing court's denial of his request for a
downward departure under United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual, § 5K2.10, p.s. (Nov. 1998). Brickle asserts that
the wrongful conduct of his children's maternal grandmother
prompted him to decline to pay child support and warranted a down-
ward departure.
A defendant may not appeal a district court's refusal to depart
downward at sentencing unless such refusal was based on a mistaken
view that it lacked the authority to depart. See United States v.
Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990). Here, the sentencing court
simply declined to award Brickle the departure he requested because
the court found it unwarranted, not because it held a mistaken view
that it lacked the authority to depart. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions of the parties are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and because argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2

-- 2 of 2 --