US v. Alan Little

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cr-00169-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998960052].. [11-5157]

Appeal: 11-5157

Doc: 36

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALAN KING LITTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cr-00169-HMH-1)

Submitted:

October 5, 2012

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 16, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5157

Doc: 36

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to an oral plea agreement, Alan King Little
pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

distribute

and

to

possess

with

intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006).

Little’s counsel has submitted a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court erred in calculating the drug weight used to
determine

Little’s

supplemental

pro

offense

se

brief

level.
that

also

Little

has

challenges

filed

the

a

district

court’s drug weight calculation, and we have considered it as
well.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Little is not entitled to relief.

This court reviews a sentence

for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
requires

appellate

consideration

of

both

substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
“We

review

the

district

the

This review

procedural

and

Id.

court’s

calculation

of

the

quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing
purposes for clear error.”

United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d

185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943 (2011).

We reverse “only if we

are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
2

Appeal: 11-5157

Doc: 36

Filed: 10/16/2012

has been committed.”
570

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557,

2009)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

In

calculating drug quantity, “the [district] court may consider
[any]

any

relevant

information

.

.

.

,

provided

that

the

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy.”

United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016,

1021 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
the

district

court

relies

on

information

in

the

When

presentence

report in making findings, the defendant bears the burden of
establishing that the information on which the court relied is
incorrect; mere objections are insufficient.

United States v.

Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461-62 (4th Cir. 2004).

We have reviewed

the contentions raised on appeal and conclude that Little has
not met his burden of establishing that the information used by
the district court in calculating drug quantity was incorrect.
We therefore conclude that the district court’s finding was not
clearly erroneous.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Little

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3

Appeal: 11-5157

Doc: 36

counsel

may

Filed: 10/16/2012

move

representation.

in

this

Pg: 4 of 4

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Little.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4