United States v. Martin , 235 F. App'x 87 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENYA LASHAN MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-16)
Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Blackwood, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenya Lashan Martin pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,
more than five kilograms of cocaine, and more than 1000 kilograms
of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and to three
counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court
sentenced her to 235 months of imprisonment. Martin appeals her
sentence on the ground that the district court erred in determining
the amount of drugs attributable to her. We affirm.
Martin asserts on appeal, as she did in the district
court, that she should be held accountable only for twenty percent
of the amount of crack cocaine sold to Anthony Brown over a
four-year period at her mobile home because Brown dealt with her
boyfriend, Brendon Steele (an indicted co-conspirator) the other
eighty percent of the time. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in attributing
more than 1.5 kilograms of crack to Martin. See United States v.
Fullilove, 388 F.3d 104, 106 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of
review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -