US v. David Otero-Campo
Filing
UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998570929].. [10-4257]
Case: 10-4257
Document: 44
Date Filed: 04/19/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID OTERO-CAMPOS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-3)
Submitted:
March 30, 2011
Decided:
April 19, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant
Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 10-4257
Document: 44
Date Filed: 04/19/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM:
David
151-month
Otero-Campos
sentence
after
appeals
pleading
his
guilty
conviction
pursuant
to
and
a
plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006), and one count of possession with
intent
to
violation
distribute
of
18
cocaine
U.S.C.
841(b)(1)(A) (2006).
§ 2
and
aiding
(2006),
21
and
abetting,
U.S.C.
§§
in
841(a)(1),
Otero-Campos’s sole assertion on appeal is
that the district court violated his due process rights when it
enhanced
his
sentence
based
on
evidence
sufficient indicia of reliability.
This
findings
for
court
clear
reviews
error
and
he
asserts
lacked
Finding no error, we affirm.
the
district
its
legal
court’s
factual
conclusions
de
United States v. Chacon, 533 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2008).
novo.
The
deferential “clear error” standard of review requires reversal
only
if
this
court
is
“left
with
the
definite
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Stevenson,
396
F.3d
538,
542
(4th
Cir.
and
firm
United States v.
2005)
(quoting
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).
“District
latitude
as
to
sentence
after
438 F.3d
437,
the
a
439
courts
traditionally
information
conviction.”
(4th
Cir.
they
2
may
United
2006)
have
been
consider
States
(internal
given
in
v.
wide
passing
Nichols,
quotation
marks
Case: 10-4257
omitted).
Document: 44
Date Filed: 04/19/2011
Page: 3
“That is because it is highly relevant — if not
essential — to the selection of an appropriate sentence for the
sentencing
court
to
possess
the
fullest
information
possible
concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.”
Id. at
440 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Thus,
a
sentencing
court
may
consider
any
relevant
information “without regard to its admissibility under the rules
of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information
has sufficient indicia of reliability . . . ”
Guidelines
Manual
(“USSG”)
§
6A1.3(a)
U.S. Sentencing
(2008).
See
United
States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]
sentencing court may give weight to any relevant information
before it, including uncorroborated hearsay. . . .”); see also
United States v. Paulino, 996 F.2d 1541, 1547 (3d Cir. 1993)
(“[A]
sentencing
judge
may
consider
information,
largely
unlimited as to kind or source, that would be inadmissible at
trial.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
There
information
instance,
are
a
district
this
court
constitutional
court
has
may
limitations
consider,
“construed
various
on
the
however.
For
Supreme
Court
decisions as recognizing a due process right to be sentenced
only on information which is accurate.”
Nichols, 438 F.3d at
440 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Thus, the
Guidelines explicitly suggest that information relied upon at
3
Case: 10-4257
sentencing
support
Document: 44
should
its
reviewed
probable
the
information
sufficient
relied
“sufficient
indicia
accuracy.”
district
indicia
accuracy.
have
Date Filed: 04/19/2011
court
upon
of
USSG
record
by
the
of
and
to
reliability
§ 6A1.3(a).
conclude
district
reliability
Page: 4
court
support
its
to
We
have
that
the
possessed
probable
We thus conclude that the district court did not err
when it calculated Otero-Campos’s Guidelines range.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?