[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 , Ci rcuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10200 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 1 of 42 Xhosa Buffington appeals her 60

- month mandatory minimum s entence, imposed after she pl ed 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 appe al, Buffington argues that the G overnment 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 Alleyn e 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 tw o 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 subjec t of this appeal, took place 18 months after Alleyne

. Buffington references Alleyne for the first time in this appeal but only to counter a n anticipated argument by the Government that Alleyne converts Buffington’s guilty plea as to all elements of the of fense 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 43 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying the waiver/abandonment rule in the context of constitutional challenges to criminal procedure)

. Because Buffington challen ges 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) ; se e 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 thr ee 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 omitt ed) ( “ Where a fact pattern gives rise to two reasonabl e 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 ident ified 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 44 grams of heroin and at least another 55.9 gr ams 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 clear ly

erroneous . The evidence offered at sentencing showed that Buffington sold drugs from her home on at l east 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 h ome was searche d, police found four scales and a la rge quantity of drugs , many of which were individually packaged in baggies. Under these facts, t he 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 pr emises, 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