Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandeep SINGH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10288.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 18, 2012.
    Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Woodrow Edgar Nichols, Jr., Esquire, Attorney at Law, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandeep Singh appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Singh contends that the district court erred in calculating the advisory Guidelines range by relying on the testimony of a co-defendant to determine Singh’s relevant conduct and to establish his base offense level. The district court did not clearly err, because its factual finding regarding the number of ecstasy pills for which Singh was responsible is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Asagba, 77 F.3d 324, 325-26 (9th Cir.1996). The district court adequately explained its decision, and the sentence imposed is procedurally sound. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.