Court Opinion

ID: 990458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:21:49.107028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:40.711712
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                 No. 95-5308

STEVE ALLEN STEELMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-11-V)

Submitted: August 30, 1996

Decided: September 23, 1996

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael S. Scofield, John J. Cacheris, LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL S. SCOFIELD, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Kenneth D. Bell, First
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Steve Allen Steelman appeals from his sentence imposed for con-
spiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1996). We affirm.

Steelman has raised only two challenges to his sentence: (1) that
the district court erred in its finding that he was responsible for
between five to fifteen kilograms of cocaine and thus attributed the
wrong offense level to him; and (2) that the district court erroneously
applied a four-point enhancement for his role in the offense under
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,
§ 3B1.1(a) (Nov. 1994).

Addressing the quantity of cocaine issue, we note that his argument
is two-fold. First, he claims that the evidence used to establish the
quantity at issue is not sufficiently reliable. A review of the proceed-
ings below reveals that Steelman did not raise this issue before the
district court. Accordingly, we find that he has waived his opportunity
to raise it now.*

The second prong of Steelman's quantity issue involves a claim of
either sentencing entrapment or manipulation. This Court has never
explicitly recognized the availability of these theories as an avenue to
attack a sentence and it does not do so now. Rather, we find that even
if these theories were viable they are not applicable to the facts of this
case. Accordingly, we find that neither argument raised by Steelman
demonstrates clear error on the part of the district court in its determi-
nation of the amount of cocaine attributable to Steelman.
_________________________________________________________________
*Steelman actually raises three points of error in relation to the issue
of quantity. One of these, however, hinges upon his success on the credi-
bility claim. As we find this claim to be waived, we need not discuss its
companion.

                     2
Steelman's second allegation of error, that the facts did not support
a finding that he was a leader or organizer under§ 3B1.1(a), is like-
wise unconvincing. Steelman argues that there was no evidence relat-
ing to, and the district court failed to make factual findings regarding,
many factors contained in application note 4 of§ 3B1.1(a). He is cor-
rect. This failure, however, does not render the district court's deci-
sion clearly erroneous. A review of the relevant facts reveals that
Steelman exercised some degree of control over three individuals in
an organization containing at least five participants. No more is
required under the guideline provision, for while the other factors
contained in application note 4 are of aid to a court in reaching its
decision, they "do not possess talismanic significance." United States
v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255, 1260 (1st Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court's § 3B1.1(a) enhancement.

Having found no error in the issues raised by Steelman, we affirm
his 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

                     3