[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10200

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00223-SCJ-JSA-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

XHOSA BUFFINGTON, 

a.k.a. Sis,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 22, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-10200 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Xhosa Buffington appeals her 60-month mandatory minimum sentence, 

imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B)(i), 841(b)(1)(C) and 

841(b)(1)(D). On appeal, Buffington argues that the Government failed to show 

she was responsible for at least 100 grams of heroin, triggering the mandatory 

minimum sentence. Buffington also argues that the sentencing court improperly 

applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises 

to distribute or manufacture controlled substances. After review, we affirm.

As a preliminary matter, Buffington does not challenge the constitutionality 

of her sentence under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151

(2013) and appears not to want a jury to decide whether she possessed a sufficient 

quantity of heroin to qualify for the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(B)(i). Buffington proceeded through two sentencing hearings and two 

appeals without raising an Alleyne objection.1

 See Hamilton v. Southland 

Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A passing reference to 

an issue in a brief is not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite 

authorities in support of an issue waives it.”); United States v. Vanorden, 414 F.3d 

 1 The plea colloquy in this case took place three weeks before Alleyne was decided. The 

first sentencing hearing, which was the subject of Buffington’s first appeal, took place two 

months after Alleyne, and the second sentencing hearing, which is the subject of this appeal, took 

place 18 months after Alleyne. Buffington references Alleyne for the first time in this appeal but 

only to counter an anticipated argument by the Government that Alleyne converts Buffington’s 

guilty plea as to all elements of the offense except the quantity of drugs into an unqualified guilty 

plea. The Government does not so argue.

Case: 15-10200 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying the waiver/abandonment rule in the context 

of constitutional challenges to criminal procedure). Because Buffington challenges 

the basis for the sentencing court’s findings rather than the constitutionality of the 

sentencing process, this Court reviews the sentencing court’s findings of fact for 

clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005); see 

also United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010).

The sentencing court’s finding that Buffington was responsible for more 

than 100 grams of heroin was not clearly erroneous. Buffington admitted to the 

factual allegations in count three of the indictment, which included a statement that 

Buffington joined the underlying conspiracy “on or about March 1, 2012.” 

Although Buffington argued at the sentencing hearing that she did not join the 

conspiracy until May 2012, the sentencing court was entitled to credit Buffington’s 

statement during her plea colloquy that the indictment was true with the exception 

of the heroin quantity. See United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted) (“Where a fact pattern gives rise to two reasonable 

and different constructions, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly 

erroneous.”). At the sentencing hearing, Buffington offered as evidence multiple 

investigation reports, which identified several heroin transactions involving one or 

more of Buffington and her co-conspirators and commencing on or after March 1, 

2012. In total, the reports identify transactions involving an aggregate of 84.2 

Case: 15-10200 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

grams of heroin and at least another 55.9 grams of heroin that was found in 

Buffington’s home. Therefore, the district court could reasonably have concluded 

that Buffington was responsible for more than 100 grams of heroin.

The sentencing court’s decision to apply a two-point enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of 

manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance was also not clearly 

erroneous. The evidence offered at sentencing showed that Buffington sold drugs 

from her home on at least one occasion and purchased drugs in her home on at 

least one occasion. On the night of Buffington’s arrest, as police approached 

Buffington’s home, they encountered in Buffington’s front yard two men, one of 

whom was armed. When Buffington’s home was searched, police found four 

scales and a large quantity of drugs, many of which were individually packaged in

baggies. Under these facts, the sentencing court could reasonably have concluded

that one of Buffington’s primary or principal uses for her home was the

distribution of drugs. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.17) (“Manufacturing or 

distributing a controlled substance need not be the sole purpose for which the 

premises was maintained, but must be one of the defendant’s primary or principal 

uses for the premises, rather than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral 

uses for the premises.”).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10200 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4