Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danilo MONTOYA, a/k/a Daniel Montoya, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Regina Vengoechea, a/k/a Regina Lopez De Vengoechea, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 00-4302, 00-4510.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided May 23, 2001.
    Michael MacKinnon, Greenville, SC; Jack B. Swerling, Columbia, SC, for appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, A. Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Danilo Montoya and Regina Vengoechea appeal from their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Montoya and Vengoechea each received a 275-month sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in the disputed evidentiary rulings. United States v. Bostian, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.1995). Appellants’ arguments that their 275-month sentences are invalid under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), fail under this court’s sentence stacking reasoning in United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537 (4th Cir.2001). Finally, we do not find that the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount of cocaine for which Appellants should be held responsible under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1158 (4th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm each Appellant’s 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.