US v. George Martin, No. 11-4085 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GEORGE MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00021-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Martin appeals the 270-month sentence imposed on remand for resentencing following his jury conviction of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute violation in of distribution excess 21 of of U.S.C. fifty § cocaine grams 846 (2006); base, §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). of in cocaine and two violation of base, in counts of 21 U.S.C. See United States v. Martin, 278 F. App x 248 (4th Cir. 2008). On appeal, Martin argues that the district court erred in sentencing him based on a drug amount greater than that found by the jury and in applying a threelevel enhancement for his role in the offense. We review a district court s We affirm. application of the Guidelines during sentencing de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279 (2010). A district court must make relevant factual findings at sentencing based on its view of the preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 357 (4th Cir. 2010). We first hold that the district court did not clearly err in determining kilograms Martin of fifty that cocaine grams or Martin base. more was Although responsible of cocaine the jury base, for 11.23 attributed [t]he to district court was free to consider, as it would with any . . . acquitted 2 conduct, whether the government could establish a higher quantity under a preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. Martin argues that the district court erred in crediting the recollections of known drug users and the expert witness that calculated a drug weight based on their testimonies. we give great deference to a district court s However, credibility determinations, see United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009), and do not fault the district court s explicit credibility findings where descriptions on the duly qualified hold that the which the witnesses gave expert detailed based his conservative estimates. We likewise district court did not clearly err in applying a three-level leadership enhancement. Pursuant to § 3B1.1(b) enhancement U.S. (2010), if he Sentencing a was defendant a Guidelines qualifies manager or Manual for supervisor a ( USSG ) three-level (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. USSG § 3B1.1(b). In determining a defendant s leadership role, a court should consider seven factors: the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. 3 USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4; see also United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). Martin does not dispute that he was active in a conspiracy involving five or more participants; he merely argues that the evidence did not show that he acted as a manager or supervisor. To the contrary, the district court heard testimony that Martin exercised control over a middleman, a lookout, and several runners to whom he fronted cocaine base. we conclude that the district court did not Accordingly, clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Martin was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy. We therefore affirm Martin s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
