UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4998
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRYSTAL HOFFMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00080-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Crystal Nichole Hoffman pled guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). At sentencing, the
district court overruled her objection to the drug quantity
attributed to her in the presentence report and concluded that
she was responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine. The
court sentenced Hoffman to forty-two months of imprisonment, and
she timely appealed. On appeal, Hoffman argues that the
district court clearly erred in finding that she was responsible
for at least 500 grams of cocaine. She asserts that the
evidence supported a conclusion that she personally consumed at
least half the cocaine she purchased, and that cocaine
personally consumed was not relevant conduct to the distribution
offense of conviction. We affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s calculation of
the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing
purposes for clear error. United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d
195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). Clear error occurs when the court,
upon reviewing the record as a whole, is “‘left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)
(quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948)). “If the defendant objects to a quantity
2
recommended in a presentence report, the district court must
make an independent resolution of the factual issues raised by
the objection.” United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 300-01
(4th Cir. 1998). The Government must establish the quantity of
drugs attributable to a defendant by a preponderance of the
evidence and may do so through the introduction of relevant and
reliable evidence. United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304, 1316
(4th Cir. 1994).
“Where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized
does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall
approximate the quantity of the controlled substance.” U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (2008).
“The district court is afforded broad discretion as to what
information to credit in making its calculations.” United
States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the district court did not err in its drug
quantity determination.
Accordingly, we affirm Hoffman’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3