Opinion ID: 796361
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ross

Text: 27 Ross challenges the district court's drug quantity findings and asserts that the Government failed to prove the amount of crack and powder cocaine attributable to him. The district court found Ross responsible for 396.48 grams of crack cocaine and 396.48 grams of powder cocaine. The district court based its findings on evidence presented at the sentencing hearing of Ross's admissions during a proffer interview with the Government in April 2005. The notes recorded from that interview state, Ross estimated that he bought and sold approximately a quarter ounce of cocaine (both powder and rocked) once a week for approximately 14 continuous months (September of 2003-November of 2004.) The district court read these admissions conjunctively, attributing to Ross the purchase and sale of a quarter ounce of crack cocaine and a quarter ounce of powder cocaine per week. 3 Ross objects to this reading, emphasizing that the report states that he bought and sold approximately a quarter ounce of cocaine . . . once a week (emphasis added). 28 Officer David Tyler was one of two officers present at Ross's proffer interview. During Ross's sentencing hearing, Officer Tyler testified: 29 Q. Did [Ross] summarize approximately the time period that he was involved in selling cocaine, both powder and rock cocaine? 30 A. Yes. He said basically from August of '03 to November of '04. 31 Q. And did he say how often he sold— what kind of quantities he sold over the course of a week for those continuous 14, 15 months? 32 A. He said he purchased about a quarter gram—a quarter ounce per week on the average over that time period. 33 Q. When you say purchased, you mean bought and sold or just purchased and used? 34 A. Bought and sold. 35 Q. And was that powder and—was that powder cocaine, crack cocaine, or both? 36 A. Both. 37 Transcript of Sentencing at 5. 38 Officer Tyler's testimony and the notes from Ross's proffer are ambiguous because they both support two different but reasonable readings. Ross reads this evidence to state that he admitted to trafficking only in one quarter ounce of cocaine per week during the relevant time period. The district court interpreted the evidence to mean that Ross trafficked in both a quarter ounce of crack cocaine and a quarter ounce of powder cocaine each week during the relevant time period. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Although we recognize the ambiguity and may well have agreed with Ross if we were reviewing this issue de novo, the entire record here does not definitely and firmly convince us that the district court made a mistake in interpreting the testimony and calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to Ross. The district court's findings are therefore not clearly erroneous. 39