United States v. Ciara Dawkins , 584 F. App'x 124 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CIARA DAWKINS, a/k/a C,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (6:12-cr-00059-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Clara Dawkins was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and aiding and abetting possession
with intent to distribute oxymorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012). The district court
sentenced her to 188 months of imprisonment. Dawkins appeals,
claiming the district court erred in determining the drug
quantity attributable to her for sentencing purposes. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Although Dawkins concedes that she is responsible for
the 119.9 kilograms of marijuana equivalent seized during a
February 3, 2012 controlled buy, she challenges the remaining
4,016.9 kilograms of marijuana equivalent on the grounds that
the probation officer utilized a “concocted formula” based on
speculation and conjecture and that the testimony of Jason
McClure was inherently unreliable. Under the Sentencing
Guidelines, a defendant convicted of conspiring to distribute
controlled substances “is accountable for all quantities of
contraband with which [s]he was directly involved and, in the
case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, all reasonably
foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope
of the criminal activity that [s]he jointly undertook.” U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (2013).
2
The government must prove the drug quantity
attributable to the defendant by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir.
2002). The district court may rely on information in the
presentence report unless the defendant affirmatively shows that
the information is inaccurate or unreliable. Id. A district
court’s findings on drug quantity are generally factual in
nature, and therefore are reviewed by this court for clear
error. Id. To reverse, this court must be “‘left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573
(1985)).
Based on our review of the record, we find no clear
error in the district court’s conclusion that the probation
officer arrived at a thorough and conservative estimate of
relevant conduct based on McClure’s testimony. Although Dawkins
attacks McClure’s credibility and reliability as an “admitted
pill abuser and addict,” the district court aptly noted that the
jury would have been unlikely to find Dawkins guilty if it had
not found McClure credible. See United States v. Beidler, 110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (providing that credibility
determinations are for the trier of fact, not the reviewing
court).
3
Accordingly, we affirm Dawkins’ conviction and
sentence. We deny Dawkins’ motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4