Court Opinion

ID: 996265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:48:24.792359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:09.729375
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4026

ROBERT E. MALCOM,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-97)

Submitted: August 4, 1998

Decided: September 10, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, George H. Lancaster, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Monica K.
Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Malcom was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea of dis-
tribution of methamphetamine and marijuana. On appeal, he alleges
that the district court erred by considering certain uncharged acts of
prior drug activity, which occurred more than seventeen months prior
to the offense of conviction, as relevant conduct pursuant to USSG
§ 1B1.3.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

From late 1994 until September 1995, Malcom regularly purchased
methamphetamine and marijuana from John Witt and his wife Kathy.
While Malcom used some of the drugs himself, most of the purchases
were made with the intent to distribute. Occasionally, Malcom gave
John Witt marijuana in exchange for methamphetamine. The Witts
unilaterally decided to stop doing business with Malcom after he
failed to pay a $500 drug debt.2 John Witt was arrested in September
1996 on federal drug charges, and he and his wife agreed to cooperate
with authorities. As part of their agreement to cooperate, Kathy Witt
acted as a confidential informant. She contacted Malcom about the
possibility of purchasing methamphetamine and marijuana from him,
and Malcom readily agreed. Kathy Witt purchased the drugs from
Malcom in March 1997, and this transaction served as the offense of
conviction.

Malcom alleges that the district court erroneously determined that
the 1994-95 transactions with the Witts constituted relevant conduct
for purposes of USSG § 1B1.3. We disagree. For offenses in which
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).
2 The Government presented evidence showing that while Malcom no
longer received drugs from the Witts, he continued to distribute metham-
phetamine and marijuana, including a transaction with a confidential
informant in October 1996.

                    2
the Guidelines depend mainly on quantity (such as drugs), conduct
not specified in the count of conviction may be considered relevant
conduct if it is part of the same course of conduct or part of a com-
mon scheme or plan as the count of conviction. See USSG
§ 1B1.3(a)(2), comment. (n.3 and backg'd). We look at the similarity,
regularity, and temporal proximity between the two offenses to deter-
mine whether the uncharged misconduct satisfies this requirement.
See United States v. Mullins, 971 F.2d 1138, 1144 (4th Cir. 1992).

While the temporal proximity of the two offenses may be thought
remote, that alone does not preclude a relevant conduct finding, espe-
cially where, as here, the respite was not of the defendant's choosing.
See United States v. Cedan-Rojas, 999 F.2d 1175, 1198 (7th Cir.
1993). More critically, the evidence clearly sufficed to establish the
other two elements of the Mullins test: regularity and similarity. There
was evidence that Malcom regularly engaged in drug transactions
with the Witts. And, while Malcom only distributed drugs to a confi-
dential informant on two occasions, nothing in the record contradicts
the Government's evidence that Malcom sold drugs on a regular basis
between 1994 and 1997. Finally, the offenses in question were very
similar in that they involved the same people and the same drugs.3

We therefore affirm Malcom's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
_________________________________________________________________
3 We reject Malcom's assertion that the offenses were dissimilar
because the buyer-seller relationship was reversed. Malcom and the
Witts had an established relationship, and the evidence suggested that
Malcom wanted to rekindle it.

                    3