US v. Gregory Clinton

Filing 920090611

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4810 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY K. CLINTON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?