UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 99-4270

JEFFREY WAYNE SIMMONS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.
(CR-98-157)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: June 28, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Patrick L. Cottrell, MITCHELL & MURRAY, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Bryant
J. Spann, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery Wayne Simmons appeals the sentence imposed on his
guilty plea to conspiracy to commit money laundering. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(h) (1994); 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (1994). Simmons was convicted
for his role in a scheme to defraud a life insurance company out of
millions of dollars by falsely representing he had sold group life
insurance packages to particular companies, which in reality were
non-existent. At sentencing, the district court departed downward by
two Offense Levels on the Government's motion pursuant to USSG
§ 5K1.1 and sentenced Simmons to forty-three months in prison and
$1,771,513.00 in restitution. On appeal, Simmons attempts to chal-
lenge the extent of the downward departure, the length of his sen-
tence, and the amount of restitution. Simmons also contends that the
district court erred in imposing as a condition of release a restriction
on his ability to obtain lines of credit. Finding that we lack jurisdic-
tion to consider the first two assignments of error, that Simmons
waived his appellate rights with respect to the restitution order, and
that the condition of release is appropriate under the Sentencing
Guidelines, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

As a threshold matter, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the
extent of a downward departure in an appellant's favor unless the
departure results in a sentence in violation of law or results from an
incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. See United States
v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994).
Neither exception applies here. Similarly, provided that the district
court's sentence is within the properly calculated guideline range, we
lack the jurisdiction to review the district court's judgment regarding
the exact length of Simmons' term in prison. See United States v.
Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Porter,
909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Because we find no evidence that
Simmons' waiver of appellate rights with respect to the restitution

                    2
order was anything less than knowing and intelligent, see United
States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991), we dismiss his
appeal as to that issue. Finally, we note that the condition of release
to which Simmons objects is recommended by the Sentencing Guide-
lines. See USSG § 5B1.3(d)(2).

Accordingly, we dismiss Simmons' claims regarding the extent of
the district court's downward departure, the length of his sentence,
and the amount of restitution, and we affirm the condition of release
imposed by the district court. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

                    3
