US v. Ross Price
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROSS LANCE PRICE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00035-RLV-DCK-12)
November 24, 2008
December 15, 2008
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ross Lance Price pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A) (2006), and one count of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006).
On appeal, he
claims the district court erred in arriving at the drug quantity for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we affirm.
Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2007), in determining the proper base offense level to apply to a defendant involved in a drug conspiracy, the defendant is responsible for his own acts, as well as for "all reasonably furtherance foreseeable of the acts" joint of his co-conspirators activity. taken in
States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993). The
Guidelines do not require precise calculations of drug quantity, as the district court's approximation is not clearly erroneous if supported by competent evidence. Randall, 171 F.3d at 210.
If the district court relies on the drug quantity included in the PSR, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the information is incorrect, as "mere objections are insufficient." Id. at 210-11. 2
We review for clear error the district court's drug quantity determination. 55 (4th Cir. 1996). United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, In determining relevant conduct, the
district court may consider any relevant and reliable evidence before it, including hearsay. 380, 381-82 (4th Cir. 1991). sufficiently reliable United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d In fact, hearsay alone can provide of drug quantity. United Hearsay See The
States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992).
statements of co-conspirators may be considered reliable. United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 607 (4th Cir. 1998).
Government has the burden of establishing the amount of drugs used for sentencing calculations by a preponderance of the
United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir.
We arriving at
challenging the drug quantity are too general, speculative and without evidentiary support. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?