UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE ANDERSON, a/k/a Dewayne Anderson,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00020-IMK-8)
Submitted: October 22, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Pizzuti, MCCAMIC, SACCO, PIZZUTI & MCCOID, PLLC,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen,
Acting United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United
States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Anderson was sentenced to 292 months’
imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute in excess of
fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841,
846 (2006) (Count One), and distribution of 1.73 grams of
cocaine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) (Count Thirteen). Anderson
filed a timely appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the convictions. In our prior decision, we
concluded that sufficient evidence supported Anderson’s
conviction on Count Thirteen, but not as to Count One. We
affirmed Anderson’s conviction on Count Thirteen, reversed his
conviction on Count One, and remanded. United States v.
Anderson, 282 F. App’x 255 (4th Cir. 2008) (No. 07-4303).
On remand, the district court adopted its findings
from the earlier sentencing proceeding regarding Anderson’s
relevant conduct and criminal history and sentenced Anderson to
188 months’ imprisonment. Anderson again appeals, contending
that the district court made numerous errors in his resentencing
— including failing to order a new Presentence Report and using
acquitted conduct in determining his relevant conduct — and
abused its discretion by denying his recusal motion.
2
We have thoroughly examined the record and find
Anderson’s contentions to be without merit. Accordingly, we
affirm his sentence. 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