US v. John Jarrell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00005-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998611056].. [10-4985]

Appeal: 10-4985

Document: 24

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN JARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2011

Decided:

June 14, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Christian M.
Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4985

Document: 24

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellant John Jarrell challenges the district court’s
determination
relevant

of

conduct

the
in

amount
the

of

drugs

calculation

attributable
of

his

to

him

sentence

as
for

distribution of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006).
This

court

reviews

the

district

court’s

factual

findings, including those pertaining to relevant conduct, for
United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 258 (4th

clear error.
Cir.

2002)

(citations

omitted).

“Clear

error

occurs

when,

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the

entire

evidence

is

left

with

the

definite

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

and

firm

United States v.

Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

Although Jarrell argues that drugs possessed

for personal use should not be considered relevant conduct in
sentencing for possession with intent to distribute, he cannot
demonstrate on this record that the district court clearly erred
when it found he possessed 200 Dilaudid pills for the purposes
of distribution.

See United States v. Wright, 991 F.2d 1182,

1187 (4th Cir. 1993) (intent to distribute may be inferred when
a defendant possesses a quantity greater than that needed for
personal use).

2

Appeal: 10-4985

Document: 24

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 3 of 3

Because Jarrell cannot demonstrate clear error in the
district court’s factual conclusion, we need not address his
legal argument.

See Pauley, 289 F.3d at 261 (“We need not

decide today whether drugs possessed for personal use should be
considered relevant conduct in sentencing for possession with
intent to distribute because the district court’s finding that
[appellant]

possessed

the

entire

quantity

with

intent

to

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

distribute was not clearly erroneous.”).

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