Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Levnous Whitsett, 4th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Levnous Whitsett, 4th Cir. (2014)
No. 13-4788
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00073-TDS-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Levnous
plea
Andrew
agreement,
hydrochloride,
district
in
court
imprisonment.
court
erred
cocaine
to
Whitsett
conspiracy
violation
of
sentenced
On
by
hydrochloride
21
controlled
to
846
(2012).
that
substances
his
the
other
plea
to
cocaine
eighty-five
argues
in
pursuant
distribute
U.S.C.
Whitsett
mentioned
guilty,
to
Whitsett
appeal,
using
pled
The
months
district
than
the
agreement
to
dismissed
two-level
counts
sentencing
as
relevant
conduct
when
under
U.S.
enhancement
Whitsett
did
not
applying
Sentencing
We affirm.
object
to
the
presentence
292 (4th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.,
572,
732
(1993)
(discussing
standard
of
review).
When
common
scheme
or
plan
as
the
offense
of
conviction
United
States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312-13 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting
USSG 1B1.3(a)(2)); see also United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d
236, 241-42 (4th Cir. 2007) (same).
2
part
of
offenses.
single
Hodge,
episode,
354
F.3d
spree,
at
313
or
ongoing
(quoting
series
USSG
of
1B1.3
cmt.n.9(B)).
Whitsett
first
argues
that
the
district
court
hydrochloride
offense
as
level.
relevant
The
conduct
Sentencing
in
determining
Guidelines
his
specifically
pled
hydrochloride.
cocaine
base
receiving
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
distribute
Here,
cocaine
cocaine
confidential
hydrochloride
informant;
and
he
receiving
confessed
and
to
purchasing
and
residence.
courts
marijuana
See
consider
from
Hodge,
in
354
his
residence
F.3d
relevant
at
313
and
his
(discussing
conduct
mothers
factors
determination).
Whitsett
substances
asserts
that
his
offense
in
the
inclusion
level
of
other
calculation
is
Whitsett
claims
that
the
district
court
maintaining
premises
controlled substances.
offenses,
manufacture
including
and
for
manufacturing
or
distributing
one
for
maintaining
distribution
of
residences
controlled
for
the
substance.
Because it is
clear that the conduct associated with the dismissed counts was
part of the same course of conduct as the offense of conviction,
we conclude that the district court did not err plainly or
otherwise in considering conduct associated with the dismissed
4
counts
as
relevant
conduct
when
it
applied
the
two-level
enhancement.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED