UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

VLADIMIR PETROVICH MAZUR, a/k/a Vladimir Mazur,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (5:12-cr-00011-GEC-6)

Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Parker, DAVID L. PARKER, PC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States 

Attorney, Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Vladimir Petrovich Mazur of 

conspiracy to distribute 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (2012); stealing firearms from a licensed dealer, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (2012); possession of stolen 

firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012); and use of 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court 

sentenced Mazur to a total of 141 months of imprisonment. On 

Mazur’s first appeal, we affirmed the convictions, but vacated 

the sentence and remanded to the district court because the 

court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its drug 

weight calculation to provide for meaningful appellate review. 

United States v. Mazur, 571 F. App’x 234, 236-37 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(per curiam). On remand for resentencing, the court again 

imposed a sentence of 141 months. Mazur now appeals. Finding 

no error, we affirm.

Mazur first argues on appeal that the district court erred 

in calculating the drug weight attributable to him. In 

reviewing the district court’s calculations under the 

Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de 

novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United 

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009)); see 
3

also United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 881 (4th Cir. 1991) 

(“The calculation of the amount of drugs which results in the 

establishment of the base offense level is a factual 

determination subject to review only for clear error.”). We 

will “find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been committed.” Manigan, 592 F.3d at 631 (quoting Easley v. 

Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)) (brackets and internal 

quotation marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record and conclude that the district court did not err in 

calculating the drug weight.

Mazur also argues that the district court failed to comply 

with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 

ruling on the parties’ objections to the drug weight calculated 

by the probation officer in the addendum to the presentence 

report (PSR). At a sentencing hearing, a district court must 

make findings on controverted matters in the PSR or determine 

that no finding is necessary, pursuant to Rule 32. United 

States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 497 (4th Cir. 2003). “We have 

concluded, however, that the ‘court need not articulate findings 

as to disputed factual allegations with minute specificity.’” 

Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Perrera, 842 

F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). We conclude that the 
4

district court sufficiently explained its findings on the drug 

weight in ruling on the objections to the PSR. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED