United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Timothy James, Defendant-appellant, 9 F.3d 1544 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 9 F.3d 1544 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: October 25, 1993. Decided: November 15, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

Lisa Costner, Greeson, Grace & Gatto, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Scott P. Mebane, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Charles Timothy James appeals the eighteen-month sentence imposed on him following his guilty plea to six counts of making false statements to banks in order to secure business loans in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West Supp. 1993). He challenges the district court's decision not to depart below the sentencing guideline range on any of the grounds urged by him. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

James requested a departure, first, because he intended to repay the loans and therefore the loss determination overstated the seriousness of his conduct, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2F1.1, comment. (n.11) (Nov. 1988); second, because he demonstrated extraordinary acceptance of responsibility and cooperation; and, third, because the victim bank's conduct contributed to the offense. After hearing testimony from James at the sentencing hearing, the district court decided not to depart. On appeal, James contends that the district court erred in failing to depart.*  A decision not to depart is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990). The appeal is therefore dismissed. 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.

DISMISSED

 *

To the extent James claims the district court did not understand its authority to depart, the record does not support such an argument

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.