Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04289/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Beverly
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALAN BEVERLY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (7:05-cr-01080-GRA-2)

Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 8, 2008

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Falkner Wilkes, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4289 Doc: 81 Filed: 04/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alan Beverly pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced to 121

months in prison. Beverly now appeals. We affirm. 

Beverly first contends that his probation officer

improperly recommended that he be assigned one criminal history

point in connection with a July 2000 charge of driving under the

influence. Although Beverly claims that there was no “adjudication

of guilt” on that charge, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.2(a)(1) (2005), the district court relied upon a court record

showing that Beverly pled guilty to the offense. When challenging

the district court’s reliance on information in a presentence

report, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the

information is incorrect. United States v. Love, 124 F.3d 595, 596

(4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th

Cir. 1990). In light of the official court record establishing

that Beverly entered a guilty plea, we conclude that Beverly did

not meet his burden and that he was properly assigned one criminal

history point for the offense. 

Beverly also complains that he did not receive an

anticipated downward departure based on his substantial assistance.

Because Beverly did not raise this matter at sentencing, our review

is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-

37 (1993). After carefully examining the record, we discern no

Appeal: 07-4289 Doc: 81 Filed: 04/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

such error in connection with this claim. We note that the

district court did not misunderstand its authority to depart, and

any failure to depart is therefore not reviewable on appeal. See

United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). We

also hold that the district court did not err in denying Beverly’s

motion for a continuance.

We accordingly affirm. 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: 07-4289 Doc: 81 Filed: 04/08/2008 Pg: 3 of 3