Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Coleman CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-02
Citations: 394 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 08-50576
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Coleman CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Coleman CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50576.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 2010.
Filed Sept. 2, 2010.
Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra Luz Lopez, Law Offices of Zan-dra L. Lopez, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Douglas Coleman Crawford, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sufficient evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant distributed fifty or more grams of cocaine base on two separate occasions. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This isn't a case where the district court approximated drug quantity from circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Culps, 300 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir.2002). The weights were corroborated by expert testimony and defendant's own admissions as to his conduct, and we give special deference to the district court's credibility determinations. See United States v. Haswood, 350 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.