UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VLADIMIR PETROVICH MAZUR, a/k/a Vladimir Mazur,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00011-GEC-6)
Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Parker, DAVID L. PARKER, PC, Harrisonburg, Virginia,
for Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States
Attorney, Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Vladimir Petrovich Mazur of
conspiracy to distribute 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2012); stealing firearms from a licensed dealer,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (2012); possession of stolen
firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012); and use of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court
sentenced Mazur to a total of 141 months of imprisonment. On
Mazur’s first appeal, we affirmed the convictions, but vacated
the sentence and remanded to the district court because the
court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its drug
weight calculation to provide for meaningful appellate review.
United States v. Mazur, 571 F. App’x 234, 236-37 (4th Cir. 2014)
(per curiam). On remand for resentencing, the court again
imposed a sentence of 141 months. Mazur now appeals. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Mazur first argues on appeal that the district court erred
in calculating the drug weight attributable to him. 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) (quoting
United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009)); see
2
also United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 881 (4th Cir. 1991)
(“The calculation of the amount of drugs which results in the
establishment of the base offense level is a factual
determination subject to review only for clear error.”). 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 (quoting Easley v.
Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)) (brackets and internal
quotation marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court did not err in
calculating the drug weight.
Mazur also argues that the district court failed to comply
with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in
ruling on the parties’ objections to the drug weight calculated
by the probation officer in the addendum to the presentence
report (PSR). At a sentencing hearing, a district court must
make findings on controverted matters in the PSR or determine
that no finding is necessary, pursuant to Rule 32. United
States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 497 (4th Cir. 2003). “We have
concluded, however, that the ‘court need not articulate findings
as to disputed factual allegations with minute specificity.’”
Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Perrera, 842
F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). We conclude that the
3
district court sufficiently explained its findings on the drug
weight in ruling on the objections to the PSR.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4