Court Opinion

ID: 992517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:53:18.019631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:22.653533
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                     No. 96-4814

GREG HATCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-12)

Submitted: June 19, 1997
Decided: July 3, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Cipriani, CIPRIANI & PAULL, L.C., Wheeling, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney,
Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Greg Hatcher pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine within 1000
feet of a school, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 860 (West 1981 & Supp. 1997).
He appeals his 262-month sentence, contending that the district
court
clearly erred in awarding him a 2-level aggravated role adjustment
under USSG § 3B1.1(c),1 and in determining that he distributed 170
grams of crack, USSG § 2D1.2. We review both factual questions
under the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v.
McDonald,
61 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir. 1995) (drug amount is factual question);
United States v. Harriott, 976 F.2d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 1992)
(defen-
dant's role in offense is factual question). Finding no clear
error, we
affirm.

At Hatcher's sentencing hearing, a detective assigned to the area
drug task force testified that confidential informants bought 1.03
grams of crack from Hatcher in two controlled buys and that, when
he was arrested, Hatcher possessed a handgun which he said he
obtained in a trade for two $50 pieces of crack. The detective also
related information received from informants who had bought crack
from Hatcher on numerous occasions. The detective explained why he
regarded each informant as a reliable source of information and how
he estimated that Hatcher sold them a total of 169.186 grams of
crack.
Hatcher testified in his own behalf. He admitted selling crack to
most
of the informants, but in smaller amounts. 2 With this information
before it, the district court did not clearly err in finding that
the gov-
ernment's hearsay evidence was reliable and that the government had
_________________________________________________________________
1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1995).
2 In his written statement to the probation officer, Hatcher
maintained
that much of what he sold was either "pressed powder" or Procaine
which he falsely represented to be crack.

                                 2
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Hatcher distributed
170 grams of crack.

The court also found that Hatcher was a manager or supervisor in
an offense which involved fewer than five participants and was not
otherwise extensive, USSG § 3B1.1(c), on the basis of the
detective's
testimony that Hatcher used several people as runners to facilitate
his
drug sales, and that Deon Lewis functioned as his bodyguard.
Hatcher
denied having a bodyguard and said that he utilized runners who
worked in a certain area for any drug dealers who were present, but
had no special relationship with any of them. He denied that any of
the informants sold crack for him. We find that, because a number
of
reliable informants described Deon Lewis as Hatcher's bodyguard,
the district court did not clearly err in finding that the
adjustment was
warranted for that reason alone.

The sentence is therefore affirmed. 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