United States v. Mayberry ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                        No. 99-4237
    JOSHUA ALLEN MAYBERRY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
    James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (CR-98-3)
    Submitted: December 14, 1999
    Decided: December 28, 1999
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Sa'ad El-Amin, Beverly D. Crawford, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United
    States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attor-
    ney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua Allen Mayberry appeals from his sentence following his
    plea of guilty to five counts of distribution of cocaine base in viola-
    tion of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
     (West 1999). We affirm.
    Mayberry contends that the district court erred in attributing to him
    more than 28 grams of cocaine base on the basis of a co-conspirator's
    statement to police. Mayberry argues that the hearsay statement pres-
    ented at the sentencing hearing was not sufficiently reliable and there-
    fore should not have been considered in calculating his sentence.
    A district court's factual finding of the relevant quantity of drugs
    is reviewed for clear error. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3742(e) (1994); United
    States v. Fletcher, 
    74 F.3d 49
    , 55 (4th Cir. 1996). The quantity of a
    drug is not a substantive element of the crime involved; rather, it is
    merely a sentencing factor that the government must prove by a pre-
    ponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Goff, 
    907 F.2d 1441
    ,
    1444 (4th Cir. 1990). In calculating drug amounts, the court may con-
    sider any relevant information, provided that the information has "suf-
    ficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." United
    States v. Uwaeme, 
    975 F.2d 1016
    , 1021 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3(a) (1991)). Consistent with
    this policy, hearsay alone can provide sufficiently reliable evidence of
    drug quantity. See id. "The district court's evaluation of reliability is
    reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." United States v.
    Rhynes, ___ F.3d ___, 
    1999 WL 980361
    , *34 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 1999)
    (citing United States v. Petty, 
    982 F.2d 1365
    , 1369 (9th Cir. 1993)).
    Reviewing the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, we
    conclude that the co-conspirator's statement was supported by suffi-
    cient indicia of reliability to render it admissible for sentencing pur-
    poses. Accordingly, the district court's use of the 28 grams in
    calculating Mayberry's sentence was neither an abuse of discretion
    nor clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm Mayberry's conviction and
    sentence.
    2
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3