UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5056
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR BARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00042-IMK-2)
Submitted: April 23, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Barrett appeals his sentence after pleading
guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2006). On appeal, he
contends that the district court erred in its drug quantity
relevant conduct findings against him. We affirm.
We review the district court’s drug quantity findings
for clear error. United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 188 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943 (2011). We will reverse
these findings “only if we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 570 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “Neither the Guidelines nor the
courts have required precise calculations of drug quantity.”
United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992);
see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 cmt. n.12 (2010).
The district court “must only determine that it was more likely
than not that the defendant was responsible for at least the
drug quantity attributed to him.” United States v. Kiulin, 360
F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Barrett was
responsible for at least two kilograms of cocaine. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
2
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