US v. Gregory Crum

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cr-00133-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000322890]. [17-4634]

Appeal: 17-4634

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY CRUM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:16-cr-00133-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: July 3, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Hostler, PRIM LAW FIRM, PLLC, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, Philip H. Wright, C. Haley Bunn, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-4634

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gregory Crum pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).

The district court sentenced Crum below the

Guidelines range to 240 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error,
we affirm.
On appeal, Crum challenges several of the district court’s Sentencing Guidelines
calculations. In reviewing the district court’s calculations under the Guidelines, “we
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We will “find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 631 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Government must demonstrate the facts underlying a
Guidelines enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.

See United States v.

Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 912 (4th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305,
308 (4th Cir. 2014).
Crum first argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount and
purity of methamphetamine attributable to him.

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. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011).

“When

determining facts relevant to sentencing, such as an approximated drug quantity, the
Sentencing Guidelines allow courts to consider relevant information without regard to its
admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information
2

Appeal: 17-4634

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/03/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” United States v.
Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
addition, “[f]or sentencing purposes, the government must prove the drug quantity
attributable to a particular defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.”

United

States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 421, 441 (4th Cir. 2011). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court did not err in calculating the amount of
methamphetamine for which Crum was responsible.
Crum next challenges the district court’s imposition of an enhancement in offense
level for a leadership role in the conspiracy.

Under the Guidelines, a four-level

enhancement in offense level applies if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.1(a) (2016). The Guidelines identify factors to consider in determining
whether to apply this enhancement, including the exercise of decision-making authority,
the nature of the defendant’s participation in the offense, the recruitment of accomplices,
the claimed right to a larger share of the profits of the criminal activity, the degree of
participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal
activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. USSG § 3B1.1
cmt. n.4.
“[I]n order to qualify for an enhancement, the defendant must have been the
organizer or leader of one or more other participants.” United States v. Cameron, 573
F.3d 179, 184 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Merely “being a buyer
and seller of illegal drugs, even in league with more than five or more other persons, does
3

Appeal: 17-4634

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/03/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

not establish that a defendant has functioned as an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor of criminal activity.” Id. at 185 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the
district court correctly concluded based upon the evidence presented at the sentencing
hearing that Crum was an organizer of the conspiracy. The court did not clearly err,
therefore, in enhancing Crum’s offense level for his leadership role.
Finally, Crum asserts that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level
based on the importation of the methamphetamine from Mexico. Under the Guidelines, a
two-level

enhancement

applies

if

the

offense

involved

the

importation

of

methamphetamine and the defendant is not subject to a mitigating role enhancement.
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(5). We find that the court correctly determined that the Government
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the methamphetamine Crum was
distributing had been imported from Mexico.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4