Court Opinion

ID: 998980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:19:15.168485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:19.781025
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4872

MARTIN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-136)

Submitted: June 17, 1999

Decided: June 25, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Lynn McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATON & TAL-
COTT, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C.
Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Martin Hernandez appeals from his conviction and sentence for
possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, and conspiring to
possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994), contending that district court erred denying
his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and in deter-
mining the amount of cocaine properly attributable to him. We affirm.

The district court's denial of Hernandez's motion for judgment of
acquittal is reviewed under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. See
United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1147 (4th Cir. 1992). To sus-
tain the conviction, the evidence, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the government, must be sufficient for a rational trier of
fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
In making this assessment, the government is entitled to all reason-
able inferences from the facts established to those sought to be estab-
lished. See United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.
1982). Review of the record under this standard reveals that Her-
nandez's conviction is supported by substantial evidence, and we
therefore find no error in the district court's denial of his motion.

Turning to Hernandez's challenge to his sentence, 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). Drug quantities are
not a substantive element of any of the crimes involved. Rather, quan-
tity is merely a sentencing factor which the Government must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Goff, 907
F.2d 1441, 1444 (4th Cir. 1990). Applying this standard to Her-
nandez's case, we find no error in the district court's determination
that Hernandez was responsible for at least five kilograms of cocaine,

                    2
and accordingly we affirm both his sentence and conviction. We dis-
pense 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

                    3