UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4434
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERICK A. GEIGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LORENZO MAURICE VENSON, a/k/a C. C.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-01-261)
Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald L. Stennett, Charleston, West Virginia; Herbert L. Hively,
II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellants. Charles T. Miller,
Acting United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Derick A. Geiger and Lorenzo Maurice Venson appeal their
sentences imposed following guilty plea convictions for conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50
grams of cocaine base and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
Venson and Geiger contend that the district court
erroneously calculated their relevant conduct because the co-
conspirator testimony upon which the calculation was based was
unreliable.
The district court’s determination of the drug quantity
attributable to a defendant is a factual finding reviewed for clear
error. United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.
1999). In determining drug quantity, a district court must
consider whether the government has established the amount by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596,
604 (4th Cir. 1996). “In reviewing sentences imposed under the
[United States Sentencing] Guidelines, [this court] must give due
regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d
585, 591 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Giving due deference to the district court’s opportunity
to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we reject Appellants’
- 3 -
related claim that the district court erred in finding co-
conspirator testimony to be credible. Sampson, 140 F.3d at 591.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in
calculating the amount of narcotics attributed to both Venson and
Geiger. Cook, 76 F.3d at 604; Randall, 171 F.3d at 210.
We affirm both Venson’s and Geiger’s convictions and
sentences. We reject Appellants’ request for 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
- 4 -