UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4885
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBIN EARL SLATER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00121-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 8, 2014
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Meredith George Thomas, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robin Earl Slater pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012); possession of firearms in furtherance of
a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2012); possession of firearms by a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012); and obstruction of justice, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1512(b)(3) (West Supp. 2014). The district
court sentenced Slater to a total of 420 months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Slater challenges the district court’s
calculation of the drug weight and application of an enhancement
under the Sentencing Guidelines for Slater’s possession of eight
firearms during the offenses. In reviewing the district court’s
calculations under the Guidelines, “we review the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We
will “find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Manigan, 592 F.3d at 631 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, the government need only establish the
amount of drugs involved by a preponderance of the evidence.
2
United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560 n.20, 562 (4th Cir.
2008). “[W]here there is no drug seizure or the amount of drugs
seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court
shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance.”
United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We will afford the district
court “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 and citation
omitted).
Finally, pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, a
district court shall increase the offense level applicable to
the offense of unlawful possession of firearms by two levels if
the defendant possessed between three and seven firearms, and by
four levels if the defendant possessed between eight and
twenty-four firearms. USSG § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), (B). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not err in calculating the advisory Guidelines range.
The court reasonably estimated the amount of drugs attributable
to Slater over the course of the conspiracy and correctly
enhanced the offense level for the firearm offense for Slater’s
possession of eight firearms.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4