Court Opinion

ID: 990470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:22:13.291624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:04.617069
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                         No. 95-5940
RAYMOND STEPHEN FRANKLIN, a/k/a
Marley,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-93-74)

Submitted: September 20, 1996

Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lynne P. Klauer, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Stephen Franklin pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A.§ 841 (West 1981
& Supp. 1996), and was sentenced to serve a term of 210 months
imprisonment. He appeals this sentence, arguing that the district court
clearly erred in determining that he was responsible for the distribu-
tion of at least 1.5 kilograms of crack, a finding which gave him a
base offense level of 38. United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1 (Nov. 1995). We affirm.

Because Franklin objected to the recommendation in the presen-
tence report, the government had the burden of proving the amount
of crack by a preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearing.
See United States v. Williams, 986 F.2d 86, 90 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
509 U.S. 911 (1993). Three co-conspirators testified at Franklin's sen-
tencing hearing. William Commodore testified that, beginning around
1989, he obtained crack from Franklin, who regularly brought it from
New York to Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Commodore said he
sometimes met Franklin at Latoscha Fisher's apartment. He specifi-
cally recalled bringing a borrowed scale to Fisher's apartment in 1992
and helping Franklin bag two kilograms of crack. Commodore could
not recall exactly when this happened, but thought it was around the
middle of the year. Latoscha Fisher testified that in April 1992,
Franklin and Commodore weighed and bagged two kilograms of
crack at her apartment. She also collected money for Franklin and she
remembered that on three occasions after April 1992 Franklin gave
her 30 one-ounce bags of crack to give to other distributors. Albert
M. Reid testified that, between April and September 1992, he regu-
larly received 8-10 ounces of crack from Franklin at Fisher's apart-
ment or at other locations. The district court found the testimony of
these witnesses credible and determined that Franklin was responsible
for distributing at least 1.5 kilograms of crack.

                    2
The district court's determination of the amount of crack attribut-
able to Franklin is a factual finding reviewable under the clearly erro-
neous standard. United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58, 62 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3247 (U.S. Oct. 2, 1995) (No. 95-
5502). Franklin argues on appeal that the government's evidence
amounted to no more than allegations. However, as the district court
observed, the witnesses' testimony was generally consistent and cor-
roborative. Because the district court found their testimony credible,
the court did not clearly err in determining Franklin's offense level.

The sentence is accordingly 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