United States v. Price , 305 F. App'x 70 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROSS LANCE PRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00035-RLV-DCK-12)
Submitted: November 24, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ross Lance Price pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A) (2006), and one count of possessing with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). On appeal, he
claims the district court erred in arriving at the drug quantity
for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we affirm.
Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2007), in determining the proper base offense
level to apply to a defendant involved in a drug conspiracy, the
defendant is responsible for his own acts, as well as for “all
reasonably foreseeable acts” of his co-conspirators taken in
furtherance of the joint criminal activity. See United
States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993). The
Guidelines do not require precise calculations of drug quantity,
as the district court’s approximation is not clearly erroneous
if supported by competent evidence. Randall, 171 F.3d at 210.
If the district court relies on the drug quantity included in
the PSR, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the
information is incorrect, as “mere objections are insufficient.”
Id. at 210-11.
2
We review for clear error the district court’s drug
quantity determination. United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49,
55 (4th Cir. 1996). In determining relevant conduct, the
district court may consider any relevant and reliable evidence
before it, including hearsay. United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d
380, 381-82 (4th Cir. 1991). In fact, hearsay alone can provide
sufficiently reliable evidence of drug quantity. United
States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992). Hearsay
statements of co-conspirators may be considered reliable. See
United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 607 (4th Cir. 1998). The
Government has the burden of establishing the amount of drugs
used for sentencing calculations by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir.
1996).
We find the district court did not clearly err in
arriving at the drug quantity. Price’s arguments on appeal
challenging the drug quantity are too general, speculative and
without evidentiary support.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions 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