US v. Crystal Hoffman, No. 09-4998 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL HOFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00080-1) Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Crystal plea agreement, Nichole to one Hoffman count of pled guilty, distribution pursuant of to cocaine, a in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). At sentencing, the district the court overruled her objection to drug quantity attributed to her in the presentence report and concluded that she was responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine. The court sentenced Hoffman to forty-two months of imprisonment, and she timely appealed. On appeal, Hoffman argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that she was responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine. She asserts that the evidence supported a conclusion that she personally consumed at least half the cocaine she purchased, and that cocaine personally consumed was not relevant conduct to the distribution offense of conviction. We affirm. This court reviews the district court s calculation of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes for clear error. United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). Clear error occurs when the court, upon as reviewing definite and committed. the firm Easley record a conviction v. whole, that Cromartie, 532 is a left with mistake U.S. 234, has 242 the been (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). If the defendant 2 objects to a quantity recommended in a presentence report, the district court must make an independent resolution of the factual issues raised by the objection. United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 300-01 (4th Cir. 1998). drugs The Government must establish the quantity of attributable to a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence and may do so through the introduction of relevant and United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304, 1316 reliable evidence. (4th Cir. 1994). Where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance. U.S. Sentencing The information v. scale Guidelines district States the Manual court to is credit Cook, 76 that the the in F.3d offense, § 2D1.1, afforded quotation marks omitted). conclude of 596, comment. broad making 604 its the (n.12) discretion as (2008). to calculations. (4th Cir. 1996) what United (internal Our review of the record leads us to district court did not err in its drug quantity determination. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument Hoffman s because the sentence. facts and We legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
