Court Opinion

ID: 998404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:10:40.738393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:22.226717
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 98-4632
JOHN ROBERT MUSGROVE, a/k/a
Musky,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CR-97-43)

Submitted: March 30, 1999

Decided: April 16, 1999

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James B. Zimarowski, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Robert Musgrove appeals from his sentence entered pursuant
to his guilty plea for conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent
to distribute, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of mari-
juana with the intent to distribute, distribution of marijuana, and pos-
session of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994); 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm.

Musgrove raises three issues on appeal. First, he asserts that the
district court erred in cross-examining the Government's sole witness
at sentencing regarding historical drug quantities. Musgrove failed to
object to this interrogation below, and review of the record convinces
us that the sentencing judge's comments were not so prejudicial that
they denied Musgrove an opportunity for a fair and impartial trial. See
Stillman v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 811 F.2d 834, 839 (4th Cir. 1987).

Next, Musgrove contends that the district court's findings regard-
ing drug quantities under relevant conduct are not supported by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence where they are based upon the testimony
of one Government witness whose credibility Musgrove challenges.
A district court's factual finding of the relevant quantity of drugs at
sentencing is reviewed for clear error. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)
(1994); United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 55 (4th Cir. 1996);
United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1018 (4th Cir. 1992).
Because quantity is not a substantive element of the offense, but is
merely a sentencing factor, the Government need only prove the
quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v.
Goff, 907 F.2d 1441, 1444 (4th Cir. 1990). In calculating drug
amounts, the Guidelines do not require scientific or statistical preci-
sion; rather, the court may consider any relevant information, pro-
vided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to

                     2
support its probable accuracy. See Uwaeme, 975 F.2d at 1021 (quot-
ing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 6A1.3(a), p.s. (1991)). The
district court specifically addressed the issue of witness credibility,
and our review of the record does not reveal that the district court
clearly erred in relying on the challenged witness' testimony in deter-
mining the amount of marijuana properly attributed to Musgrove.

Finally, Musgrove asserts that the district court's failure to advise
him of a possible mandatory minimum sentence either invalidates his
plea or estops the Government from advocating additional drug quan-
tities triggering the mandatory minimum sentence. Construing this as
an allegation of a Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 11 violation, we find any
error to be harmless as Musgrove's attorney specifically stated during
his sentencing hearing that Musgrove wished to go forward with his
plea even knowing that he faced a five-year mandatory minimum sen-
tence. See United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995);
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117 (4th Cir. 1991). In light
of this statement, indicating a clear understanding of the potential
consequences of his plea, we find no reason to invalidate either Mus-
grove's plea or sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm Musgrove's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3