Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Dennis, 98-4640 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-4640 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEFRIN DENNIS, a/k/a Dizzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-98-48) Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEFRIN DENNIS, a/k/a Dizzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-98-48) Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marshall Courtright, COLLINS & COURTRIGHT, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Lisa A. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Defrin Dennis appeals his sentence of 87 months imprisonment imposed after his plea of guilty to distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a) (1994). Dennis claims on appeal that the district court erred by denying him a two-level decrease in his base offense level under the safety valve provision of the guidelines and that the court erred in calculating the amount of cocaine base attributable to him as relevant conduct under the guidelines. However, we do not find that the district court clearly erred on either issue. Accordingly, we affirm his sen- tence. 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer