United States v. John Jarrell , 434 F. App'x 228 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4985
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN JARRELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.      Irene C. Berger,
    District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-1)
    Submitted:   May 31, 2011                 Decided:   June 14, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Christian M.
    Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
    Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
    Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant John Jarrell challenges the district court’s
    determination     of   the   amount   of      drugs    attributable     to     him    as
    relevant    conduct     in   the    calculation         of      his   sentence       for
    distribution of oxycodone, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1)
    (2006).
    This    court     reviews       the       district     court’s     factual
    findings, including those pertaining to relevant conduct, for
    clear error.      United States v. Pauley, 
    289 F.3d 254
    , 258 (4th
    Cir.   2002)    (citations    omitted).          “Clear      error    occurs      when,
    although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
    the    entire   evidence     is    left       with    the    definite       and   firm
    conviction that a mistake has been committed.”                    United States v.
    Harvey, 
    532 F.3d 326
    , 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).        Although Jarrell argues that drugs possessed
    for personal use should not be considered relevant conduct in
    sentencing for possession with intent to distribute, he cannot
    demonstrate on this record that the district court clearly erred
    when it found he possessed 200 Dilaudid pills for the purposes
    of distribution.       See United States v. Wright, 
    991 F.2d 1182
    ,
    1187 (4th Cir. 1993) (intent to distribute may be inferred when
    a defendant possesses a quantity greater than that needed for
    personal use).
    2
    Because Jarrell cannot demonstrate clear error in the
    district court’s factual conclusion, we need not address his
    legal argument.     See Pauley, 
    289 F.3d at 261
     (“We need not
    decide today whether drugs possessed for personal use should be
    considered relevant conduct in sentencing for possession with
    intent to distribute because the district court’s finding that
    [appellant]   possessed    the   entire   quantity   with    intent   to
    distribute was not clearly erroneous.”).
    We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.         We
    dispense   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4985

Citation Numbers: 434 F. App'x 228

Judges: Davis, Per Curiam, Wilkinson, Wynn

Filed Date: 6/14/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023