UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY K. CLINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00005-JPB-DJJ-1)
Submitted: May 1, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory K. Clinton pled guilty to distribution of 9.03
grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). At sentencing, the confidential informant who
participated in the controlled buys testified to his prior
purchases of crack cocaine from Clinton. Based on that
testimony, the district court held Clinton accountable for at
least fifty but less than 150 grams of crack and sentenced him
to eighty-seven months in prison, the bottom of the advisory
guidelines range. Clinton appeals, challenging the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence on the ground that the
confidential informant was not credible. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, whether
the sentence is within or outside the guidelines range. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). “The first step in
this review requires us to ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as . . .
improperly calculating . . . the Guidelines range.’” United
States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008).
“[S]entencing courts . . . make factual findings concerning
. . . relevant conduct[] by a preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2009). This
court reviews those findings for clear error. United States v.
2
Thompson, 554 F.3d 450, 452 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (defining clear
error). “[W]hen a district court’s factual finding is based
upon assessments of witness credibility, such finding is
deserving of the highest degree of appellate deference.”
Thompson, 554 F.3d at 452 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Applying these standards, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court did
not clearly err in determining the amount of drugs attributable
to Clinton. We therefore find that Clinton’s sentence is
procedurally sound.
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
3