United States v. Valladares , 235 F. App'x 188 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RENE VALLADARES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:03-cr-00703-GRA-1)
Submitted: April 6, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Isaac
Louis Johnson, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rene Valladares pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty kilograms or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846
(2000), and three counts of using a telephone to facilitate a
felony under the Controlled Substances Act, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 843(b) (2000). He appeals his 360-month prison sentence,
arguing that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence
after finding that Valladares was a leader of the conspiracy.
Valladares’s sentence was reentered by the district court
in the course of a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He
argues that the court should have conducted a formal resentencing
hearing at that time. We have recently held that, in circumstances
such as those present here, a formal resentencing is not necessary
when the district court merely corrects a sentence pursuant to
§ 2255. See United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 667-69 (4th
Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the only issue before us is the district
court’s application of the role enhancement at Valladares’s
original sentencing.
A district court’s determination of the defendant’s role
in the offense is reviewed for clear error. United States v.
Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). A four-level adjustment
for role in the offense is appropriate when “the defendant was an
- 2 -
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or
more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a). We have reviewed the record, the
district court’s findings, and the briefs of the parties on appeal,
and we conclude that the district court’s application of the role
enhancement was not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm Valladares’s conviction and
sentence. 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 -