Court Opinion

ID: 1000084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:07.616626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:21.937935
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 99-4099

VARIAN STRADWICK, a/k/a V.V.,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 99-4112

STEFON STRADWICK, a/k/a Big Strad,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-17)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: October 27, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Joseph J. Harris, Morgantown, West Virginia; Thomas E. White,
Moundsville, West Virginia, for Appellants. David E. Godwin,
United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Varian Stradwick and Stefon Stradwick appeal the sentences
imposed as a result of their guilty pleas to offenses stemming from
their roles in a crack cocaine distribution conspiracy. Varian Strad-
wick pled guilty to distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of
crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (1994), and 21 U.S.C. § 860 (1994), respectively. Stefon
Stradwick pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Finding no error
in the district court's sentences, we affirm.

Both Appellants suggest that the district court committed clear
error in determining the amount of crack cocaine to be attributed to
each of them for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Love, 134
F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 66
U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-9085). This Court
affords due deference to the district court's choice to credit the grand
jury testimony of a co-conspirator over the Appellants' denials of
involvement in determining the amount of crack cocaine included in
the Appellants' relevant conduct. See United States v. Williams, 977
F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992). Our review of the record and relevant
documents reveals nothing that would suggest that the district court

                    2
abused its broad discretion by crediting that testimony. See United
States v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 722 (4th Cir. 1993). We find that
there was no clear error on the part of the district court in determining
the drug amounts for sentencing purposes.

In addition, the district court properly declined to award Varian
Stradwick two-level reductions under USSG § 5C1.2, see United
States v. McQuilkin, 78 F.3d 105, 108 (3d Cir. 1996), and did not
clearly err in refusing a similar reduction under USSG § 3B1.2. See
Love, 134 F.3d at 606. Finally, we conclude that there was no viola-
tion of Stefon Stradwick's due process right to obtain potentially
favorable information that was in the possession of the government
because the information the government failed to share in this
instance was not material and would not have affected the result of
the sentencing proceeding. See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87
(1963); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-34 (1995).

Finding no merit to any of the Appellants' assignments of error, we
affirm their convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3