Opinion ID: 777315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings Regarding Drug Quantity

Text: 17 As long as the sentence imposed is not greater than the maximum penalty authorized by statute for the offense charged and (in cases involving a guilty plea) allocuted to by the defendant, a district court may consider drug quantity in determining a defendant's relevant conduct for sentencing purposes pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a), even if drug quantity has not been charged in the indictment as an element of the offense. See United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655, 663-64 (2d Cir.2001) ( en banc ). A district court's findings as to the quantity of narcotics involved in an offense are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Prince, 110 F.3d 921, 924 (2d Cir.1997). If, in the absence of a drug seizure, a district court must estimate the amount of drugs involved in a crime for sentencing purposes, that estimation need be established only by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 925. In making that estimation, a sentencing court may rely on any information it knows about, id. (internal quotation marks omitted), including evidence that would not be admissible at trial, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (1998); see United States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633, 641 (2d Cir.1995), as long as it is relying on specific evidence — e.g., drug records, admissions or live testimony, United States v. Shonubi, 103 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir.1997). Moreover, the district court may make credibility determinations which this Court will not disturb unless clearly erroneous. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d at 641. 18 In this case, the District Court's calculation of drug quantity was not clearly erroneous. The Court based its estimation of the amount of marijuana for which McLean was responsible on the amount of marijuana seized upon McLean's arrest, the amount of marijuana seized at Jean-Baptiste's apartment, and the testimony of DeLuca. Although McLean correctly points out that DeLuca's testimony was uncorroborated and that DeLuca was an admitted drug dealer eager to please the Government, these matters bear on DeLuca's credibility, which the District Court was free to determine for itself. See id. We give a district court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses strong deference, see United States v. John Doe # 1, 272 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir.2001), and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the District Court's credibility determinations in this case were clearly erroneous. 19