UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4898
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAILLE DEVON MIDGETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00029-D-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2013 Decided: July 25, 2013
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Henry Johnson, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamaille Devon Midgette pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of
cocaine (Count 1), and two counts of distribution of a quantity
of cocaine (Counts 2, 3). He was sentenced to eighty-eight
months of imprisonment for each offense to be served
concurrently. On appeal, Midgette nominally raises five issues,
but the gist of his appeal is that the district court
miscalculated the drug weight attributable to him and as a
result imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness applying a “deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 52 (2007). We first must ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error. Id. at 51. Only if
the sentence is procedurally reasonable can we evaluate the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, again using an abuse
of discretion standard. Id.; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Midgette only alleges procedural error on appeal. In
determining whether the district court committed any significant
procedural error, we look to any failure in the calculation (or
the improper calculation) of the Sentencing Guidelines range,
2
the treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory, the failure to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, the selection
of a sentence using clearly erroneous facts, and any failure to
adequately explain the chosen sentence, including any deviation
from the advisory Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Here, the district court accepted the recommendations
in the presentence report, including the drug amounts attributed
to Midgette. We review a district court’s calculation of drug
amounts for clear error. See United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d
185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing review standard). The court
primarily based its drug amount finding on evidence from
Midgette’s co-conspirator estimating the total amount of drugs
involved in the conspiracy. An investigator testified at the
sentencing hearing as to the reliability of the co-conspirator
and we find the evidence was sufficiently reliable to support
the district court’s findings of the amounts at issue. United
States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010); see
United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992)
(noting that hearsay alone can provide sufficiently reliable
evidence of drug quantity).
We find that the district court’s explanation of its
sentence was adequate, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-
57 (2007); United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010), especially in light of the fact that the eighty-
3
eight-month sentence was imposed within a properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range of 78-97 months. A sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is afforded a presumption
of reasonableness on appeal. Rita, 551 U.S. at 347; United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Finally, the district court made an alternative
finding that, even if it was incorrect in its drug amount
findings, it would have imposed the same sentence based on an
analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. The court specifically relied
on our opinion in United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119
(4th Cir. 2011), for this finding. See also United States v.
Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we find no clear error in the amount of
drugs for which Midgette was held responsible, Slade, 631 F.3d
at 188, and that his Guidelines range sentence was reasonable.
Rita, 551 U.S. at 347. Thus, we affirm his sentence. We dispense
with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are
adequately addressed in the materials before this court and oral
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4