UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ROSS LANCE PRICE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00035-RLV-DCK-12) 

Submitted: November 24, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United 

States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Ross Lance Price pled guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A) (2006), and one count of possessing with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). On appeal, he 

claims the district court erred in arriving at the drug quantity 

for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2007), in determining the proper base offense 

level to apply to a defendant involved in a drug conspiracy, the 

defendant is responsible for his own acts, as well as for “all 

reasonably foreseeable acts” of his co-conspirators taken in 

furtherance of the joint criminal activity. See United 

States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999); United 

States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993). The 

Guidelines do not require precise calculations of drug quantity, 

as the district court’s approximation is not clearly erroneous 

if supported by competent evidence. Randall, 171 F.3d at 210. 

If the district court relies on the drug quantity included in 

the PSR, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the 

information is incorrect, as “mere objections are insufficient.” 

Id. at 210-11. 

2 
3 

 We review for clear error the district court’s drug 

quantity determination. United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 

55 (4th Cir. 1996). In determining relevant conduct, the 

district court may consider any relevant and reliable evidence 

before it, including hearsay. United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d 

380, 381-82 (4th Cir. 1991). In fact, hearsay alone can provide 

sufficiently reliable evidence of drug quantity. United 

States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992). Hearsay 

statements of co-conspirators may be considered reliable. See

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 607 (4th Cir. 1998). The 

Government has the burden of establishing the amount of drugs 

used for sentencing calculations by a preponderance of the 

evidence. United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir. 

1996). 

 We find the district court did not clearly err in 

arriving at the drug quantity. Price’s arguments on appeal 

challenging the drug quantity are too general, speculative and 

without evidentiary support. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and 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