US v. Alan Little, No. 11-5157 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALAN KING LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before KING and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 16, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 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 supplemental pro offense se brief level. that also Little has challenges filed the a 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). requires appellate consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. We review the district the This review procedural and Id. 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. 570 (4th Cir. United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 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). the district court relies on information in the When 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 review. If Little Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 3 counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Little. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
