Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Shelton HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-11
Citations: 26 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 00-4744
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Shelton HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 352–352

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Shelton HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4744.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
Decided Feb. 11, 2002.
Ronnie M. Mitchell, Mitchell, Brewer, Richardson, Adams, Burns & Boughman, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Troy Shelton Hall appeals his conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 2000). Hah was sentenced to a term of 108 months imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that (1) the district court impermissibly questioned him at trial, causing prejudice to the defense, (2) the district court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant's objections to the form of certain questions, and (3) the district court erroneously determined the drug quantity attributable to him during sentencing. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.
Hall failed to object at trial to the district court's questions. Therefore, any challenge is waived except in the "limited exception" where the trial court's questions were so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair and impartial trial. United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 589-90 (4th Cir.1994); Stillman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 811 F.2d 834, 839 (4th Cir. 1987). Hall has failed to show this level of prejudice. Hall also challenges several questions as leading and argumentative. We review a district court's rulings as to the form of questions for a clear abuse of discretion and will not overturn such decisions absent prejudice or clear injustice to the litigant. United States v. Durham, 319 F.2d 590, 592 (4th Cir.1963). Hall has not demonstrated prejudice here.
Hall also claims that the district court erroneously determined his sentence using hearsay testimony in calculating drug quantities. However, reliable hearsay may be considered by sentencing judges in determining relevant facts. United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d 380, 381 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, we note that the district court properly applied a preponderance standard in assessing all evidence bearing on drug quantity. See United States v. Crump, 120 F.3d 462, 468 (4th Cir.1997). We therefore affirm the conviction 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.