US v. Gregory Clinton

Filing 920090611

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY K. CLINTON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00005-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted:

May 1, 2009

Decided:

June 11, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Gregory K. Clinton pled guilty to distribution of 9.03 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). participated purchases of At in sentencing, the the confidential buys testified informant to Based his on who prior that

controlled cocaine

crack

from

Clinton.

testimony, the district court held Clinton accountable for at least fifty but less than 150 grams of crack and sentenced him to eighty-seven months in prison, the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. reasonableness of Clinton appeals, challenging the procedural his sentence on the ground that the

confidential informant was not credible.

We affirm.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, whether the sentence is within or outside the guidelines range. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). this review no requires us to `ensure that Gall v.

"The first step in the district such as court . . . United

committed

significant

procedural

error,

improperly calculating . . . the Guidelines range.'"

States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), . cert. . . denied, make 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008).

"[S]entencing

courts

factual

findings

concerning

. . . relevant conduct[] by a preponderance of the evidence." United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2009). court reviews those findings for clear error. 2 This

United States v.

Thompson, 554 F.3d 450, 452 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (defining clear error). upon "[W]hen a district court's factual finding is based of witness credibility, of such finding is

assessments of the

deserving

highest

degree

appellate

deference."

Thompson, 554 F.3d at 452 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying these standards, we have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court did

not clearly err in determining the amount of drugs attributable to Clinton. We therefore find that Clinton's sentence is

procedurally sound. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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

3