UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARLENE ECKLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-5)
Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 18, 2008
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Q. Burgess, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID Q. BURGESS, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Darlene Eckles of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine,
less than 500 grams of cocaine, and less than fifty kilograms of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district
court sentenced her to 235 months of imprisonment. Eckles appeals
her sentence, asserting that the district court erred in
determining the amount of drugs attributable to her and in refusing
to award a mitigating role downward adjustment. We affirm.
Eckles contends that the district court did not make
particularized findings with regard to the scope of her agreement
to participate in the conspiracy or to the amount of drugs
reasonably foreseeable to her, as required by United States v.
Bolden, 325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2003). Appellate review of a
district court’s imposition of a sentence is for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The
appellate court:
must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.
Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is
procedurally sound, the appellate court should then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Id. at 597.
- 2 -
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
and conclude that the district court implicitly made the findings
required by Bolden by relying on information in the presentence
report and on the federal agent’s testimony at sentencing
summarizing the trial evidence that pertained directly to Eckles’
activities during the time Rick Eckles lived with her and operated
his crack business out of her house. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (2006) (“In determining the
scope of the criminal activity that the particular defendant agreed
to jointly undertake . . . , the court may consider any explicit
agreement or implicit agreement fairly inferred from the conduct of
the defendant and others.”) (emphasis added). We also find that
the district court did not clearly err in attributing more than 1.5
kilograms of crack to Eckles. See United States v. Fullilove, 388
F.3d 104, 106 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review).
Eckles also asserts that the district court erred by
failing to award a mitigating role downward adjustment because she
was involved in the conspiracy for only six months. Our review of
the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in this regard because Eckles failed to meet her burden
of showing that she was entitled to the downward adjustment. See
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating
standard of review); United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202
(4th Cir. 1999) (allocating burden).
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -