United States v. Tate ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                  No. 97-4871
    JEFFREY TATE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
    (CR-97-38-H)
    Submitted: June 9, 1998
    Decided: July 20, 1998
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Tracy C. Curtner, HAFER, MCNAMARA, CALDWELL, CUTLER
    & CURTNER, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice
    McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Jeffrey Tate was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea of
    one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack
    cocaine. On appeal he alleges that he was entitled to a three-level
    reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility
    pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1;1 that the district court erroneously deter-
    mined that he was a supervisor in a criminal activity pursuant to
    USSG § 3B1.1(c); that the evidence did not support an enhancement
    for possession of a firearm pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1); that he
    qualified for the "safety valve" provision in USSG §§ 5C1.2 and
    2D1.1(b)(6); and that the court should have granted his motion for a
    downward departure. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    In August 1995, law enforcement officers in California arrested
    Ronnie Boston on drug conspiracy charges. Boston agreed to cooper-
    ate and identified his suppliers and customers, including Tate. Boston
    told officials that he had known Tate since they were in junior high
    school together and had sold drugs to Tate on several occasions since
    1993.2 In June 1996, Boston placed a monitored telephone call to
    Tate. Tate stated that he had been trying to reach Boston because he
    needed to purchase more drugs, and Boston agreed to supply Tate.
    However, due to bureaucratic problems, Boston was not able to call
    Tate again until January 1997. In a series of telephone calls, Boston
    and Tate negotiated the purchase of three kilograms of crack cocaine.
    Officers arrested Tate shortly after he arrived at the transaction site
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995).
    2 Boston was able to purchase drugs more cheaply in California and
    transported them to North Carolina, where they sold for a much higher
    price.
    2
    and seized the purchase money, an inside-the-pants holster, ammuni-
    tion, and a loaded .25 caliber handgun.3
    As he did at trial, Tate challenges the district court's sentencing
    calculations in a number of ways. First, Tate alleges that the court
    erred by not granting his motion for a downward adjustment based on
    acceptance of responsibility. Tate cites to his guilty plea and the fact
    that he agreed to be debriefed concerning his drug activities in sup-
    port of his claim. The burden is on the defendant to show that he is
    entitled to the reduction, and the reduction is only appropriate where
    the defendant has shown an affirmative acceptance of responsibility
    for his behavior. See United States v. Harris , 
    882 F.2d 902
    , 906-07
    (4th Cir. 1989). In the present case, the Government asserted at sen-
    tencing that Tate lied during the debriefing and continuously tried to
    minimize his involvement with drugs. Tate responds that the Govern-
    ment wanted him to provide information he did not have. We find that
    this presents a credibility determination, which the district court
    resolved against Tate. Since evidence in the record supports the
    court's decision, we find that it was not clearly erroneous. See United
    States v. Nale, 
    101 F.3d 1000
    , 1005 (4th Cir. 1996) (district court's
    factual determination concerning acceptance of responsibility
    reviewed for clear error).
    Tate also challenges the district court's decision to enhance his
    base offense level because he played a supervisory role in the conspir-
    acy. We review the district court's factual determination concerning
    Tate's role in the offense for clear error and find none. See United
    States v. Campbell, 
    935 F.2d 39
    , 46 (4th Cir. 1991). The record shows
    that Tate had at least two people screening his calls for him.4 Since
    the Guidelines only require that a defendant supervise one other indi-
    vidual for the enhancement to apply,5 we find that the district court
    properly calculated this part of Tate's sentence. Moreover, while Tate
    _________________________________________________________________
    3 The ammunition and handgun were found under the driver's seat of
    the vehicle driven by Tate during an extensive search conducted approxi-
    mately one hour after his arrest.
    4 While this in itself is not a crime or indicative of criminal activity, the
    record suggests that these people knew who Boston was and were aware
    of the nature of his relationship with Tate.
    5 See USSG § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2).
    3
    alleges that he was merely an intermediary between Boston and his
    cousin and that any comments he made to the contrary were simply
    bragging, we find that this, too, presents a credibility issue which the
    court resolved against him.
    Tate further alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support
    the district court's enhancement for possession of a firearm because
    he denied ownership of the weapon or knowledge that it was in the
    vehicle. We disagree. The Government need only prove that the
    enhancement is applicable by a preponderance of the evidence, and
    the district court's factual determinations must be upheld unless they
    are clearly erroneous. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 
    879 F.2d 1234
    , 1237-38 (4th Cir. 1989). In addition, "[t]he adjustment should
    be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable
    that the weapon was connected with the offense." USSG § 2D1.1,
    comment. (n.3).
    In the present case, we find that the record supports the district
    court's determination that Tate's drug sentence should be enhanced.
    Boston informed investigators that Tate usually carried a firearm
    under the front seat of his vehicle during drug transactions.6 In addi-
    tion, the holster was found lying in plain view on the front passenger
    seat. Moreover, even though Tate alleged he was going to meet an old
    friend and did not need a firearm, the district court properly con-
    cluded that he was carrying a large amount of cash and would return
    with a large quantity of crack cocaine. As a result, it was not clearly
    improbable that the firearm was available for Tate's use in connection
    with his drug trafficking if necessary. Since the evidence supports the
    district court's finding that Tate possessed a firearm in connection
    with his drug trafficking offense and that he played a supervisory role
    in the conspiracy, he was not eligible for sentencing under the "safety
    valve" provision. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (f) (1994); USSG § 5C1.2.
    Finally, we reject Tate's assertion that he was entitled to a down-
    ward departure because of his unusual acceptance of responsibility,
    minor role in the offense, and temporary withdrawal from the
    _________________________________________________________________
    6 Although Tate's sister testified that the firearm and vehicle belonged
    to her, possession, not ownership, is the issue.
    4
    conspiracy.7 It is well-settled that a district court's decision not to
    grant a motion for downward departure is not reviewable unless the
    court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to depart. See
    United States v. Bayerle, 
    898 F.2d 28
    , 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). In the
    present case, the district court heard Tate's arguments on these issues
    and properly determined that a departure was not warranted under the
    circumstances. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the court
    believed that it lacked the authority to grant Tate's motion.
    We therefore affirm Tate's conviction and sentence. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    _________________________________________________________________
    7 Tate alleges that he only returned to the drug trade at Boston's urging.
    5