UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CIARA DAWKINS, a/k/a C,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (6:12-cr-00059-1)

Submitted: September 18, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States 

Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Clara Dawkins was convicted of

conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and aiding and abetting possession 

with intent to distribute oxymorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012). The district court 

sentenced her to 188 months of imprisonment. Dawkins appeals, 

claiming the district court erred in determining the drug 

quantity attributable to her for sentencing purposes. Finding 

no error, we affirm.

Although Dawkins concedes that she is responsible for 

the 119.9 kilograms of marijuana equivalent seized during a 

February 3, 2012 controlled buy, she challenges the remaining 

4,016.9 kilograms of marijuana equivalent on the grounds that 

the probation officer utilized a “concocted formula” based on 

speculation and conjecture and that the testimony of Jason 

McClure was inherently unreliable. Under the Sentencing 

Guidelines, a defendant convicted of conspiring to distribute 

controlled substances “is accountable for all quantities of 

contraband with which [s]he was directly involved and, in the 

case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, all reasonably 

foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope 

of the criminal activity that [s]he jointly undertook.” U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (2013). 
3

The government must prove the drug quantity 

attributable to the defendant by a preponderance of the 

evidence. United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir. 

2002). The district court may rely on information in the 

presentence report unless the defendant affirmatively shows that 

the information is inaccurate or unreliable. Id. A district 

court’s findings on drug quantity are generally factual in 

nature, and therefore are reviewed by this court for clear 

error. Id. To reverse, this court must be “‘left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 

(1985)).

Based on our review of the record, we find no clear 

error in the district court’s conclusion that the probation 

officer arrived at a thorough and conservative estimate of 

relevant conduct based on McClure’s testimony. Although Dawkins 

attacks McClure’s credibility and reliability as an “admitted 

pill abuser and addict,” the district court aptly noted that the 

jury would have been unlikely to find Dawkins guilty if it had 

not found McClure credible. See United States v. Beidler, 110 

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (providing that credibility 

determinations are for the trier of fact, not the reviewing 

court).
4

Accordingly, we affirm Dawkins’ conviction and 

sentence. We deny Dawkins’ motion to file a pro se supplemental 

brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED