Court Opinion

ID: 1001577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:57:52.100333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:19.643281
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4227

DAVID EUGENE CRAWFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-93-11)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: May 19, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joel S. Trilling, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

David Eugene Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence fol-
lowing his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to dis-
tribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). We affirm
pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See Columbus-American Dis-
covery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th Cir.
2000).

Crawford contends that the district court failed to establish a fac-
tual basis for his plea, the Government breached the plea agreement,
and the district court erred in attributing more than five kilograms of
drugs to Crawford. Crawford previously presented each of these argu-
ments to the court in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
See United States v. Crawford, No. 97-7138 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998)
(per curiam) (unpublished). Because this Court previously considered
these arguments on the merits and none of the exceptions enumerated
in United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1146 (1999), apply, we affirm the district court's
order of judgment and conviction.

AFFIRMED

                    2