Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4495
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN LOCKLEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4505
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN LOCKLEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-02-126)
Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 7, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
No. 03-4495, dismissed, and No. 03-4505, affirmed by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover
Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 03-4505, Melvin Locklear appeals from the judgment
of the district court convicting him of one count of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base and two counts of distribution of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and sentencing
him to 235 months imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Locklear claims that the district court erred by refusing
to apply a two-level downward adjustment to his offense level based
on his alleged minor role in the offense. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (b) (2002). We review a district court’s
determination regarding a defendant’s role in the offense for clear
error. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir.
1989). Our review of the record does not support Locklear’s claim.
Locklear’s cousin, the head of the drug operation, directed an
undercover agent to Locklear on two occasions to facilitate illegal
narcotics transactions. Locklear advised the agent that he was the
one to do business with. Moreover, Locklear demonstrated the
ability to cook large quantities of cocaine into crack cocaine and
did so for the agent. Finally, Locklear’s cousin indicated that
Locklear had access to the narcotics and was responsible for
conducting business in his absence. Given this evidence, it was
not clear error for the district court to overrule Locklear’s
objection to the presentence investigation report.
We affirm the judgment of the district court with respect
to No. 03-4505. Because Locklear consents to the Government’s
motion to dismiss No. 03-4495, we dismiss that appeal. 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.
No. 03-4495, DISMISSED;
No. 03-4505, AFFIRMED
- 4 -