UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL SAUCEDO ARZATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00292-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Michael Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Saucedo Arzate appeals from the judgment imposed
after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and received a 168-month sentence. Counsel
filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief
stating that there are no meritorious issues, but questioning
whether the court erred in converting cash seized into an
equivalent quantity of methamphetamine in determining drug
quantity at sentencing. Arzate was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The
Government declined to file a brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Arzate contends that the district court plainly erred when
it adopted the presentence report and converted $85,200 in
currency that was found next to methamphetamine in an
outbuilding on his property into 2762.28 grams (2.76 kilograms)
of methamphetamine for sentencing purposes. Because Arzate did
not object to any aspect of the quantity calculation at
sentencing, our review is limited to plain error. See United
States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404, 410 (4th Cir. 2012). “To
establish plain error, the appealing party must show that an
error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and
(3) affects substantial rights.” United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
“[T]he government must prove the drug quantity attributable
to a particular defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir. 2011). We
review the district court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs
attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes for clear
error. United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir.
2013); see also United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609,
612 (4th Cir. 2010) (when assessing a challenge to the district
court’s application of the Guidelines, this court reviews
factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo).
Under this standard, we will reverse the district court’s
finding only if we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Crawford, 734
F.3d at 342 (internal quotation marks omitted).
When determining facts relevant to sentencing, such as
approximated drug quantity, courts are allowed to “‘consider
relevant information without regard to its admissibility under
the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the
information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy.’” Crawford, 734 F.3d at 342 (quoting [U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual] § 6A1.3(a)). “Where there is no
drug seizure . . . the sentencing judge shall approximate the
quantity of the controlled substance. . . . The judge may
consider, for example, the price generally obtained for the
3
controlled substance . . . .” USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.5. We have
acknowledged that sentencing courts may convert money considered
to be the proceeds of drug trafficking into a drug quantity for
sentencing purposes. See United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456,
461 (4th Cir. 2004) (cash found alongside drugs was converted
into drug quantity based on the estimated cost of an Ecstasy
pill); United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 883 (4th Cir. 1991)
(drug-related money may be included in relevant conduct).
The evidence showed that Arzate stored drugs and
drug-related paraphernalia at the property officers searched.
The cash was seized from an outbuilding and found next to 3392
grams of methamphetamine. Also seized from the property was a
metal cooking pot containing a mixture of liquid methamphetamine
that had been crystallizing, a cutting agent for
methamphetamine, a plastic bag of rocks that tested positive for
a cutting agent, an additional cutting agent for cocaine, and
large and small digital scales. Thus, it is reasonable to
assume that the cash located in the outbuilding near a package
of 3.3 kilograms of methamphetamine was there as a result of
drug trafficking. Based on the record, we conclude that the
district court’s finding that the $85,200 in seized currency
converted into 2.76 kilograms of methamphetamine was not plain
error.
4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Arzate’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Arzate, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Arzate requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Arzate.
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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5