Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04473/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04473-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darlene Eckles
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4473

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARLENE ECKLES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-5)

Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 18, 2008

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Q. Burgess, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID Q. BURGESS, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4473 Doc: 69 Filed: 08/18/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Darlene Eckles of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine,

less than 500 grams of cocaine, and less than fifty kilograms of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district

court sentenced her to 235 months of imprisonment. Eckles appeals

her sentence, asserting that the district court erred in

determining the amount of drugs attributable to her and in refusing

to award a mitigating role downward adjustment. We affirm.

Eckles contends that the district court did not make

particularized findings with regard to the scope of her agreement

to participate in the conspiracy or to the amount of drugs

reasonably foreseeable to her, as required by United States v.

Bolden, 325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2003). Appellate review of a

district court’s imposition of a sentence is for abuse of

discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The

appellate court:

must first ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to

consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to

adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.

Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is

procedurally sound, the appellate court should then

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 

Id. at 597. 

Appeal: 07-4473 Doc: 69 Filed: 08/18/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record

and conclude that the district court implicitly made the findings

required by Bolden by relying on information in the presentence

report and on the federal agent’s testimony at sentencing

summarizing the trial evidence that pertained directly to Eckles’

activities during the time Rick Eckles lived with her and operated

his crack business out of her house. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (2006) (“In determining the

scope of the criminal activity that the particular defendant agreed

to jointly undertake . . . , the court may consider any explicit

agreement or implicit agreement fairly inferred from the conduct of

the defendant and others.”) (emphasis added). We also find that

the district court did not clearly err in attributing more than 1.5

kilograms of crack to Eckles. See United States v. Fullilove, 388

F.3d 104, 106 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review).

Eckles also asserts that the district court erred by

failing to award a mitigating role downward adjustment because she

was involved in the conspiracy for only six months. Our review of

the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not

clearly err in this regard because Eckles failed to meet her burden

of showing that she was entitled to the downward adjustment. See

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating

standard of review); United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202

(4th Cir. 1999) (allocating burden).

Appeal: 07-4473 Doc: 69 Filed: 08/18/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Appeal: 07-4473 Doc: 69 Filed: 08/18/2008 Pg: 4 of 4