USA v. Charleston Lyron Daughtry, No. 05-11812 (11th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-11812 ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00185-CR-WS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLESTON LYRON DAUGHTRY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _________________________ (April 21, 2006) Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER*, District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. This is Charleston Lyron Daughtry s appeal from the sentence that was imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We will keep this opinion brief, because it is unpublished, the parties are familiar with the facts and issues, and we had a thorough discussion of the case with the attorneys at oral argument. The district court did not err by employing the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining the quantity of cocaine to attribute to Daughtry. See United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997). As for the factual issues involving the quantity of drugs to be attributed to Daughtry, the district court was in a far better position than we are to resolve conflicts in the evidence and make credibility choices. It heard live testimony not only from Agent Loftis, but also from Daughtry himself. We cannot say that the district court s resolution of conflicts in that evidence, or its decision to credit the parts of the agent s testimony that it did, was clear error. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.