UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4527

TRACEY PINKNEY DANIELS, a/k/a

Tracey Pinkney,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CR-02-217)

Submitted: December 3, 2003

Decided: December 31, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Lori S. Murray, LAW OFFICES OF LORI S. MURRAY, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States

Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tracey Pinkney Daniels pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846 (2000). Daniels appeals her sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment. We find no error and affirm. 

Daniels asserts the district court erred in its failure to award her an

adjustment for a mitigating role in the offense, U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (2002). A defendant has the burden of

showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a mitigating

role in the offense. United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th

Cir. 1999). A defendant may receive a four-level reduction for being

a minimal participant if she is "plainly among the least culpable of

those involved in the conduct of a group." USSG § 3B1.2(a), comment. (n.4). This level of culpability is shown by the defendant’s

"lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the

enterprise and of the activities of others . . . ." Id. A two-level reduction may be made when a defendant is a minor participant, that is, one

who "is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role

could not be described as minimal." USSG § 3B1.2(b), comment.

(n.5). The "critical inquiry is thus not just whether the defendant has

done fewer ‘bad acts’ than his codefendants, but whether the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to committing the offense."

United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal

quotation omitted). Role adjustments are determined on the basis of

the defendant’s relevant conduct. United States v. Fells, 920 F.2d

1179, 1183-84 (4th Cir. 1990). The district court’s determination concerning the defendant’s role in the offense is reviewed for clear error.

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998). The district

court found Daniels was not entitled to a mitigating role adjustment

because she was involved in handling heroin, bundled money from

drug proceeds, knew she was living among drugs and guns, paid rent

2 UNITED STATES v. DANIELS
for a residence where drugs were manufactured with her acquiescence

and large quantities of drugs were stored in her bedroom. We find no

clear error in the district court’s determination that Daniels was not

a minimal or minor participant. 

Daniels also contends that it was error when the Probation Officer

first recommended an adjustment for a mitigating role and then

revised the presentence report after Daniels’ objections pointed out

that the base offense level was properly reduced to thirty, pursuant to

USSG § 2D1.1(a)(3). The district court, however, was not bound by

the Probation Officer’s recommendation in the presentence report.

United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, we affirm Daniels’ sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. DANIELS 3