United States v. Larecius Mattison , 685 F. App'x 267 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4656
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARECIUS MATTISON, a/k/a Tadpole,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:15-cr-00130-TMC-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2017 Decided: April 21, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larecius Mattison pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). He was
sentenced to 120 months in prison. Mattison appeals, raising two sentencing issues. We
conclude that neither issue has merit and that the sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Mattison first contends that the district court erroneously held him responsible for
a minimum of one kilogram of cocaine. Because he did not raise this issue below, our
review is for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-77 (4th Cir.
2010). To establish plain error, Mattison must show that an error occurred, that it was
plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993). We will not exercise our discretion to correct plain error unless the error
“seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Id.
At his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, Mattison conceded that he was responsible for
500 grams or more of cocaine. He also agreed that the United States’ recitation of the
factual basis was accurate. According to the factual basis, agents witnessed Mattison
leave a hotel room and place in a garbage can “a kilogram wrapper that contained a
kilogram of cocaine earlier that day.” In light of Mattison’s representation to the court,
we find no plain error in the district court’s holding him accountable for at least one
kilogram of cocaine. See United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993)
2
(drug weight may be established by defendant’s acknowledgment during Rule 11 hearing
that amount alleged by Government is correct).
Mattison also contends that the district court did not fully and accurately address
his request to be placed in a state drug court known as the Bridge Program, under which
the defendant participates in a period of drug treatment prior to sentencing. Whether to
approve an applicant’s admission into the program depends upon a variety of factors,
including a verified history of current substance abuse or addiction, the nature of the
current charge, the defendant’s criminal history, and his dangerousness to the community.
Upon successful completion of the program, the United States, in its sole discretion, may
move for downward departure or variance, reduce or dismiss the charge, refer the
defendant to pretrial diversion, or recommend a non-Guidelines sentence.
The district court gave several reasons for denying Mattison’s request for
placement in the Bridge Program. Among other things, the court noted that there was
evidence of drug use but not drug addiction and that the present offense was serious and
involved possession of a firearm. This explanation sufficiently addressed Mattison’s
request for placement in the program.
We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3