United States v. Jamerson ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                     No. 97-4861
    THOMAS KENT JAMERSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
    James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CR-96-70063)
    Submitted: April 28, 1998
    Decided: June 18, 1998
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    James G. Hunter, III, O'KEEFFE & SPIES, Lynchburg, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P.
    Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Thomas Kent Jamerson was convicted pursuant to his
    guilty plea of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. On
    appeal he alleges that the district court erred in its determination of
    the amount of drugs attributable to him and for increasing his base
    offense level for possession of a firearm pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1.1
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    Jamerson was part of a loose-knit conspiracy which distributed
    drugs in Central Virginia, and he purchased cocaine for both personal
    use and resale. Two of Jamerson's co-conspirators ("Gallier" and
    "Powell") provided statements concerning the amount of cocaine pur-
    chased by Jamerson and stated that Jamerson always carried a firearm
    during drug transactions.2
    We review the district court's factual determination concerning the
    amount of drugs attributable to Jamerson for clear error and find
    none. See United States v. Lamarr, 
    75 F.3d 964
    , 972 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    65 U.S.L.W. 3309
     (U.S. Oct. 21, 1996) (No.
    95-9398); United States v. D'Anjou, 
    16 F.3d 604
    , 614 (4th Cir. 1994).
    Jamerson bears the burden of proving that the information in the pre-
    sentence report is incorrect, and mere objections are insufficient. See
    United States v. Terry, 
    916 F.2d 157
    , 162 (4th Cir. 1990). We find
    that Jamerson fails to meet this burden. The sole basis for Jamerson's
    objection on this issue is his belief that Powell was not a reliable wit-
    ness because she was a heavy drug user. He asserts, therefore, that he
    should not be held accountable for any amounts identified by Powell.
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).
    2 The investigating FBI agent also testified that Jamerson carried a fire-
    arm during drug transactions.
    2
    Credibility issues, however, are decided by the fact finder, and the
    district court resolved this issue against Jamerson. 3
    We review the district court's factual findings concerning the
    § 2D1.1 enhancement for clear error and find none here.4 A two-level
    increase in Jamerson's base offense level for possession of a firearm
    was appropriate unless it was "clearly improbable" that the weapon
    was connected with the offense.5 In the present case, two co-
    conspirators and the investigating agent stated that Jamerson carried
    a firearm during drug transactions. Since Jamerson fails to provide
    any evidence to refute these statements, we find that the district
    court's decision was not clearly erroneous.
    We therefore affirm Jamerson's conviction and sentence. We dis-
    pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    _________________________________________________________________
    3 We note that Jamerson provided no direct evidence refuting Powell's
    statements.
    4 See United States v. Urrego-Linares, 
    879 F.2d 1234
    , 1237-38 (4th
    Cir. 1989).
    5 See USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3).
    3