Court Opinion

ID: 994780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:28:12.608442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:19.433508
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-4502

DWAYNE CLARK, a/k/a Bill,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-96-192-S)

Submitted: April 16, 1998

Decided: May 1, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert T. Durkin, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.
Battaglia, United States Attorney, Christine Manuelian, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Clark pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and posses-
sion with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994). He was sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment and five
years of supervised release. He timely appealed the judgment of con-
viction and sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Clark contends that the district court erred by adjusting his sen-
tence upward by three levels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.1(b) (1995). A three-level upward adjustment is due
"[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer
or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants
or was otherwise extensive." See USSG§ 3B1.1(b). Such a factual
determination is reviewable for clear error, United States v. Harriott,
976 F.2d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 1992), and the testimony of a credible
government witness is sufficient to support the adjustment. See
United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1159 (4th Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3708 (U.S. Apr. 22, 1996) (No.
95-8395).

Clark's plea agreement contained stipulations of fact sufficient to
warrant the adjustment. Further, the adjustment was supported by the
testimony of a codefendant at sentencing, which the district court
found credible. We find that the district court's upward adjustment
under § 3B1.1(b) was not clearly erroneous.* Accordingly, we affirm
Clark'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 argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Clark filed a pro se supplemental brief, expanding counsel's chal-
lenge to the sentencing adjustment under 3B1.1(b). We have considered
the supplemental brief, but find his claims meritless. See Hyppolite, 65
F.3d at 1159; Harriott, 976 F.2d at 202.

                    2