UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALAN KING LITTLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:11-cr-00169-HMH-1)

Submitted: October 5, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, 

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to an oral plea agreement, Alan King Little 

pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with 

intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2006). Little’s counsel has submitted a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

the district court erred in calculating the drug weight used to 

determine Little’s offense level. Little has filed a 

supplemental pro se brief that also challenges the district 

court’s drug weight calculation, and we have considered it as 

well. 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Little is not entitled to relief. This court reviews a sentence 

for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review 

requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.

“We review the district court’s calculation of the 

quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing 

purposes for clear error.” United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 

185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), 

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943 (2011). We reverse “only if we 

are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 
3

has been committed.” United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 

570 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

calculating drug quantity, “the [district] court may consider

[any] any relevant information . . . , provided that the 

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its

probable accuracy.” United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 

1021 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). When 

the district court relies on information in the presentence 

report in making findings, the defendant bears the burden of 

establishing that the information on which the court relied is 

incorrect; mere objections are insufficient. United States v. 

Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461-62 (4th Cir. 2004). We have reviewed 

the contentions raised on appeal and conclude that Little has 

not met his burden of establishing that the information used by 

the district court in calculating drug quantity was incorrect. 

We therefore conclude that the district court’s finding was not

clearly erroneous. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Little requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 
4

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Little. 

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