UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALAN KING LITTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cr-00169-HMH-1)
Submitted: October 5, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to an oral plea agreement, Alan King Little
pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006). Little’s counsel has submitted a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court erred in calculating the drug weight used to
determine Little’s offense level. Little has filed a
supplemental pro se brief that also challenges the district
court’s drug weight calculation, and we have considered it as
well.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Little is not entitled to relief. This court reviews a sentence
for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review
requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
“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. Slade, 631 F.3d
185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943 (2011). We reverse “only if we
are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
2
has been committed.” United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557,
570 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
calculating drug quantity, “the [district] court may consider
[any] any relevant information . . . , provided that the
information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy.” United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016,
1021 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). When
the district court relies on information in the presentence
report in making findings, the defendant bears the burden of
establishing that the information on which the court relied is
incorrect; mere objections are insufficient. United States v.
Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461-62 (4th Cir. 2004). We have reviewed
the contentions raised on appeal and conclude that Little has
not met his burden of establishing that the information used by
the district court in calculating drug quantity was incorrect.
We therefore conclude that the district court’s finding was not
clearly erroneous.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Little requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Little.
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
4