United States v. Montoya

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 00-4302 DANILO MONTOYA, a/k/a Daniel Montoya, Defendant-Appellant.  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 00-4510 REGINA VENGOECHEA, a/k/a Regina Lopez De Vengoechea, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-99-98) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 2 UNITED STATES v. MONTOYA COUNSEL Michael MacKinnon, Greenville, South Carolina; Jack B. Swerling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, A. Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attor- ney, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS- TICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Danilo Montoya and Regina Vengoechea appeal from their convic- tions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Montoya and Vengoechea each received a 275-month sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in the disputed evidentiary rulings. United States v. Bostain, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 1995). Appellants’ arguments that their 275-month sen- tences are invalid under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), fail under this court’s sentence stacking reasoning in United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2001). Finally, we do not find that the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount of cocaine for which Appellants should be held responsible under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1158 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm each Appellant’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and UNITED STATES v. MONTOYA 3 argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED