Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    United States v. June Dale Norris Bledsoe, 956 F.2d 1163, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of June Dale Norris Bledsoe for drug and firearm convictions. The district court considered 250 pounds of marijuana and an ounce of cocaine in determining Bledsoe's sentence, which she argued was improper. The appellate court found that uncharged conduct may be considered if it is part of a common scheme, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bledsoe possessed the drug quantities based on testimony and her statements to probation officers. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. June Dale Norris Bledsoe, 956 F.2d 1163, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    69 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of June Dale Norris Bledsoe for drug and firearm convictions. The district court considered 250 pounds of marijuana and an ounce of cocaine in determining Bledsoe's sentence, which she argued was improper. The appellate court found that uncharged conduct may be considered if it is part of a common scheme, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bledsoe possessed the drug quantities based on testimony and her statements to probation officers. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 956 F.2d 1163 Docket: 91-5777

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of June Dale Norris Bledsoe for drug and firearm convictions. The district court considered 250 pounds of marijuana and an ounce of cocaine in determining Bledsoe's sentence, which she argued was improper. The appellate court found that uncharged conduct may be considered if it is part of a common scheme, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bledsoe possessed the drug quantities based on testimony and her statements to probation officers. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    69 views3 pages

    United States v. June Dale Norris Bledsoe, 956 F.2d 1163, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of June Dale Norris Bledsoe for drug and firearm convictions. The district court considered 250 pounds of marijuana and an ounce of cocaine in determining Bledsoe's sentence, which she argued was improper. The appellate court found that uncharged conduct may be considered if it is part of a common scheme, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bledsoe possessed the drug quantities based on testimony and her statements to probation officers. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    956 F.

    2d 1163

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    June Dale Norris BLEDSOE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 91-5777.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Oct. 4, 1991.
    Decided March 4, 1992.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-90-42-5)
    Gerald L. Bass, Bass, Bryant & Deese, Raleigh, N.C., for appellant.
    Margaret P. Currin, United States Attorney, R. Daniel Boyce, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.
    E.D.N.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before K.K. HALL, WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    June Dale Norris Bledsoe was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine,


    possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, use of a firearm
    in a drug trafficking crime, and maintaining a place for the purpose of narcotics
    distribution. She appeals her sentence on the ground that the sentencing court

    erred in determining the amount of drugs involved in her offense. We find no


    error and affirm.
    2

    Bledsoe and Sherwood Turnage sold illegal liquor, marijuana, cocaine, and two
    firearms to an undercover agent on several occasions in October and November
    1989. The first time the agent met with Turnage and Bledsoe, Turnage said that
    he was expecting 250 pounds of marijuana to be delivered that night. The next
    day the agent was told through an informant that he could come get the pound
    of marijuana and liquor he wanted, but that Turnage would not be home
    because he would be busy drying out the 250 pounds of marijuana, and Bledsoe
    would take care of him. When the agent went by their residence, Bledsoe sold
    him some marijuana which was still "wet." After her conviction, Bledsoe
    admitted in her interview with the probation officer that she was there when
    Turnage told the agent that 250 pounds of marijuana was going to be delivered;
    however, she said they actually received only a small amount. She objected to
    the inclusion of the 250 pounds in the calculation of her sentence, maintaining
    that its existence had not been proved.

    Lonnie Stacker testified that Bledsoe sold him an ounce of cocaine in February
    1990. At her trial, Bledsoe denied that she ever sold cocaine to Stacker. She
    objected to the use of this ounce in the computation of her sentence because the
    sale to Stacker was not charged in the indictment.

    The district court found that both the 250 pounds of marijuana and the ounce of
    cocaine sold to Stacker were properly considered in determining the sentence.
    On appeal, Bledsoe contends that Stacker's testimony was unreliable because
    he was testifying under a plea agreement and that there was insufficient
    evidence that Bledsoe and Turnage possessed 250 pounds of marijuana.

    The relevant conduct to be considered in determining the offense level in a drug


    offense includes all quantities of drugs that were part of the same course of
    conduct or part of the same common scheme or plan. United States Sentencing
    Commission, Guidelines Manual, 1B1.3(a)(2). Uncharged conduct may be
    considered in computing the base offense level when it is part of the same
    commmon scheme or plan. United States v. Williams, 880 F.2d 804 (4th
    Cir.1989). In this case, both trial testimony and information in the presentence
    report provided a basis for the district court's use of the two contested drug
    quantities. A defendant who challenges the accuracy of information in the
    presentence report has an affirmative duty to show that the information is
    unreliable or inaccurate. United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.1990).
    The district court had heard Bledsoe and Stacker testify during the trial and
    could make its own assessment of their credibility. Moreover, although the

    agent had not seen the whole 250 pounds of marijuana, there was evidence to
    support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Bledsoe and Turnage
    had possessed that amount. Under U.S.S.G. 2D1.4, comment. (n. 2), when the
    amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the district court may
    approximate the quantity of drugs involved. We find no clear error in the
    district court's ruling in this regard.
    6

    The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed. 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.

    You might also like