Case ID: f-appx_27/html/0195-01.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. Nadine Muriel WALTON, a/k/a Nadine Denise Muriel, a/k/a Carole Muriel Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 17, 2001.
    
      David A. Stock, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Nadine Muriel Walton appeals her April 17, 2001 conviction and 151-month sentence on twenty separate counts relating to the operation of a cocaine base distribution network out of her home. Specifically, Walton pled guilty to seven counts of making false statements in acquiring a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a)(6) (West 2000), and was convicted after a bench trial of six additional counts of making false statements in acquiring a firearm, as well as five counts of possession of a firearm by a drug user, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(3) (West 2000), conspiring to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and maintaining a crack house, see 21 U.S.C. § 856 (1994). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Walton’s first challenge on appeal relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support each set of counts. However, we have reviewed the trial transcript and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Young, 248 F.3d 260, 273 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2617, 150 L.Ed.2d 771 (2001). In particular, we note there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of a tacit agreement between Walton and her son Michael Walton to distribute cocaine base from Walton’s home to support Walton’s conviction under § 846. See United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 922 (4th Cir.1997).

Walton also challenges the district court’s conversion of cash seized from her son during a search of their home into an equivalent quantity of drugs for sentencing purposes. However, because the money seized was part of the same course of conduct, and the amount of drugs actually seized during the search did not accurately reflect the scale of drug activity charged, we find this assignment of error meritless. See United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 882-83 (4th Cir.1991). Additionally, because Walton received ten-year sentences for her firearms convictions and 151 month sentences for her convictions under § 846 and § 856, we find her sentence does not implicate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 153 n. 3, 156-57 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc) (finding sentences below the statutory maximum do not implicate Apprendi ).

Accordingly, we affirm Walton’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.