United States v. Wayne Oliver Viands ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-4045
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WAYNE OLIVER VIANDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior Dis-
    trict Judge. (CR-97-80)
    Submitted:   August 24, 1999             Decided:   September 21, 1999
    Before HAMILTON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Roland M.L. Santos, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert
    P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Wayne Oliver Viands pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
    methamphetamine. On appeal, Viands alleges that the district court
    erred by finding that he was the leader or organizer of the drug
    conspiracy. Thus, he contends that his sentence was improperly en-
    hanced four levels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
    § 3B1.1(a) (1998).
    We do not find that the district court clearly erred in
    applying the enhancement.   See United States v. Perkins, 
    108 F.3d 512
    , 518 (4th Cir. 1997).   The evidence reveals that Viands headed
    a drug conspiracy of greater than five persons, recruited his son
    into the enterprise, and essentially oversaw the acquisition,
    cutting, and distribution of the drugs, and collection of money
    from sales.   See United States v. Harris, 
    39 F.3d 1262
    , 1270-71
    (4th Cir. 1994); USSG § 3B1.1, comment.   (nn.2, 6).   Accordingly,
    we affirm Viands’ sentence. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
    terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4045

Filed Date: 9/21/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021