UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER PLUMLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4741
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY PLUMLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00224-2; 5:05-cr-00224-1)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia; Richard M. Gunnoe, Hinton, West Virginia, for Appellants.
zCharles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Roger Plumley (Roger) and Rodney Plumley
(Rodney) each pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base (crack), a quantity of cocaine, and
hydrocodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district
court sentenced Roger to 190 months imprisonment and Rodney to 193
months imprisonment. Both received five years supervised release
and a $2000 fine. Rodney contends on appeal that the district
court erred in determining the drug quantity for which he was
accountable. Both appellants argue that the court erred in finding
that they had more than minor or minimal roles in the conspiracy.
We review these factual issues for clear error, United States v.
Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560 (4th Cir. 2007), and affirm.
In 2004 and 2005, the Plumley brothers permitted two
separate groups of crack suppliers, one from New York and one from
Ohio, to use their residences in West Virginia as a place to sell
crack. In exchange, they received crack for their own use. Rodney
also sold crack he obtained from the Ohio distributors several
times. In April 2005, acting on a tip from a confidential
informant, state police stopped one of two vehicles traveling
together from Ohio to the Plumleys’ home, and seized 187.5 grams of
crack from the vehicle. Shortly afterward, a search warrant was
executed at the Plumleys’ home, where Rodney and the driver of the
second vehicle were found with 78 grams of crack. Rodney
- 3 -
challenges the district court’s determination that he was
responsible for the crack seized from the vehicle that was stopped
by the police. We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in finding that the crack seized from the vehicle was
reasonably foreseeable to Rodney, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), (2) (2005), and attributable to him as relevant
conduct.
We further conclude that the district court’s
determination that neither Roger nor Rodney had a mitigating role
in the conspiracy was not clearly erroneous. United States v.
Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646 (4th Cir. 2001) (inquiry is whether
defendant’s conduct is material or essential to commission of
offense).
We therefore affirm the sentences imposed by the district
court. 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
- 4 -