United States v. Jermaine Dickerson , 570 F. App'x 328 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE D. DICKERSON, a/k/a Chris, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00228-1)
Submitted: May 1, 2014 Decided: May 5, 2014
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Michael Bragg, THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN M. BRAGG,
Barboursville, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin
II, United States Attorney, Joseph F. Adams, Assistant United
States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine D. Dickerson appeals from the 189-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute heroin and twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine
base. He contends that the district court erred in determining
the quantity of drugs attributable to him and by enhancing his
sentence based on his leadership role in the conspiracy.
Finding no clear error, we affirm Dickerson’s sentence.
We review the district court’s determination of drug
amounts attributable to a defendant for clear error. United
States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147 (4th Cir. 2009). In
reviewing the district court’s factual determinations, this
court must give “due regard to the opportunity of the district
court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” United States
v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1018 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Because there was no specific evidence as to the total
amount of controlled substances involved in the conspiracy, the
court is permitted to “approximate the quantity [of drugs] to be
used for sentencing.” Uwaeme, 975 F.2d at 1019 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Such an approximation must be based
on evidence that has “sufficient indicia of reliability.” Id.
at 1021.
2
We have reviewed the evidence presented at trial prior
to Dickerson’s plea and during the evidentiary hearing held for
the purposes of sentencing, and we conclude that the district
court’s extrapolation was based on evidence that has sufficient
indicia of reliability. We find no clear error in the court’s
determination of the relevant conduct attributable to Dickerson.
Dickerson also challenges the district court’s
determination that he had a leadership role in the offense. He
contends that the evidence of his involvement showed merely
buyer and seller relationships among the alleged co-
conspirators. We again review for clear error. United States
v. Thorson, 633 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2011).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level
adjustment where the defendant is found to be an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor in a conspiracy that involves
fewer than five participants. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3B1.1(c). In finding that Dickerson exercised control over at
least one other participant, see United States v. Rashwan, 328
F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003), the district court relied on
evidence that Dickerson would arrange and prepare sales of
heroin or crack cocaine, directing witness Jonathan McDonald
where to meet the buyer. McDonald would deliver the drugs as
instructed, accept payment from the buyer, and deliver the money
to Dickerson. The district court also found that Dickerson
3
exercised some control over Tessa Vinson and Robert Pemberton,
arranging for them to complete drug sales at their apartment on
behalf of the conspiracy.
This evidence supports the district court’s
determination that Dickerson exercised control over at least one
other participant in the conspiracy. Accordingly, we uphold the
two-level sentencing enhancement for having a leadership role.
In conclusion, we affirm Dickerson’s 189-month
sentence. 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
4