US v. Samuel Arzate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00292-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999989589].. [16-4170]
Appeal: 16-4170
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL SAUCEDO ARZATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00292-NCT-1)
Submitted:
December 15, 2016
Decided:
December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Michael Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4170
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Samuel
after
Saucedo
he
pleaded
methamphetamine
filed
an
Arzate
Anders
appeals
and
guilty
v.
received
to
a
from
the
conspiracy
168-month
California,
judgment
386
to
distribute
sentence.
U.S.
738
imposed
Counsel
(1967),
brief
stating that there are no meritorious issues, but questioning
whether
the
erred
quantity
equivalent
court
of
quantity at sentencing.
in
converting
methamphetamine
cash
in
seized
into
determining
drug
Arzate was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Government
declined
to
an
file
a
brief.
Finding
no
error,
The
we
affirm.
Arzate contends that the district court plainly erred when
it
adopted
currency
the
that
presentence
was
found
report
next
and
to
converted
$85,200
methamphetamine
in
in
an
outbuilding on his property into 2762.28 grams (2.76 kilograms)
of methamphetamine for sentencing purposes.
not
object
to
any
aspect
of
the
Because Arzate did
quantity
calculation
sentencing, our review is limited to plain error.
at
See United
States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404, 410 (4th Cir. 2012).
“To
establish plain error, the appealing party must show that an
error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and
(3) affects substantial rights.”
F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
United States v. Lynn, 592
Appeal: 16-4170
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 3 of 5
“[T]he government must prove the drug quantity attributable
to a particular defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir. 2011).
We
review the district court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs
attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes for clear
error.
United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir.
2013); see also United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609,
612 (4th Cir. 2010) (when assessing a challenge to the district
court’s
application
of
the
Guidelines,
this
court
reviews
factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo).
Under
this
finding
standard,
only
if
we
we
are
will
reverse
“left
with
the
the
district
definite
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
court’s
and
firm
Crawford, 734
F.3d at 342 (internal quotation marks omitted).
When
determining
approximated
drug
facts
quantity,
relevant
courts
to
are
sentencing,
allowed
to
such
as
“‘consider
relevant information without regard to its admissibility under
the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the
information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy.’”
Crawford, 734 F.3d at 342 (quoting [U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual] § 6A1.3(a)).
“Where there is no
drug seizure . . . the sentencing judge shall approximate the
quantity
consider,
of
the
for
controlled
example,
the
substance.
price
3
.
.
generally
.
The
judge
obtained
for
may
the
Appeal: 16-4170
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/19/2016
controlled substance . . . .”
Pg: 4 of 5
USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.5.
We have
acknowledged that sentencing courts may convert money considered
to be the proceeds of drug trafficking into a drug quantity for
sentencing purposes.
See United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456,
461 (4th Cir. 2004) (cash found alongside drugs was converted
into drug quantity based on the estimated cost of an Ecstasy
pill); United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 883 (4th Cir. 1991)
(drug-related money may be included in relevant conduct).
The
evidence
drug-related
showed
paraphernalia
that
at
the
Arzate
stored
property
drugs
officers
and
searched.
The cash was seized from an outbuilding and found next to 3392
grams of methamphetamine.
Also seized from the property was a
metal cooking pot containing a mixture of liquid methamphetamine
that
had
been
crystallizing,
a
cutting
agent
for
methamphetamine, a plastic bag of rocks that tested positive for
a cutting agent, an additional cutting agent for cocaine, and
large
and
small
digital
scales.
Thus,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume that the cash located in the outbuilding near a package
of 3.3 kilograms of methamphetamine was there as a result of
drug trafficking.
Based on the record, we conclude that the
district court’s finding that the $85,200 in seized currency
converted into 2.76 kilograms of methamphetamine was not plain
error.
4
Appeal: 16-4170
In
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/19/2016
accordance
with
Pg: 5 of 5
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We therefore affirm Arzate’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Arzate, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Arzate requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Arzate.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?