Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    United States v. Linton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Prince Linton pled guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine but failed to appear for his sentencing. He was sentenced in 2000 to 240 months in prison. 2) At his sentencing, Linton's co-defendants provided testimony that differed from their prior statements, claiming they only dealt small amounts of crack. The court found their testimony unreliable except for one witness. 3) The court determined Linton was responsible for 423.1 grams of crack based on other evidence it deemed more reliable, including grand jury testimony and co-defendant statements. It did not err in using estimates or considering sources disclosed to Linton.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Linton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views4 pages
    1) Prince Linton pled guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine but failed to appear for his sentencing. He was sentenced in 2000 to 240 months in prison. 2) At his sentencing, Linton's co-defendants provided testimony that differed from their prior statements, claiming they only dealt small amounts of crack. The court found their testimony unreliable except for one witness. 3) The court determined Linton was responsible for 423.1 grams of crack based on other evidence it deemed more reliable, including grand jury testimony and co-defendant statements. It did not err in using estimates or considering sources disclosed to Linton.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4028

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Prince Linton pled guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine but failed to appear for his sentencing. He was sentenced in 2000 to 240 months in prison. 2) At his sentencing, Linton's co-defendants provided testimony that differed from their prior statements, claiming they only dealt small amounts of crack. The court found their testimony unreliable except for one witness. 3) The court determined Linton was responsible for 423.1 grams of crack based on other evidence it deemed more reliable, including grand jury testimony and co-defendant statements. It did not err in using estimates or considering sources disclosed to Linton.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    39 views4 pages

    United States v. Linton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Prince Linton pled guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine but failed to appear for his sentencing. He was sentenced in 2000 to 240 months in prison. 2) At his sentencing, Linton's co-defendants provided testimony that differed from their prior statements, claiming they only dealt small amounts of crack. The court found their testimony unreliable except for one witness. 3) The court determined Linton was responsible for 423.1 grams of crack based on other evidence it deemed more reliable, including grand jury testimony and co-defendant statements. It did not err in using estimates or considering sources disclosed to Linton.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    PRINCE LINTON,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-4028

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
    Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-97-22)
    Submitted: July 31, 2001
    Decided: September 5, 2001
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Samuel J. Davis, John M. Purcell, DAVIS & DAVIS, Union Town,
    Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
    Sharon L. Potter, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. LINTON

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Prince Linton pled guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting the distribution of .24 grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. 841(a) (West
    1999). He failed to appear for sentencing. Almost three years later, as
    authorities were about to arrest him, Linton turned himself in. He was
    sentenced in December 2000 to a term of 240 months imprisonment.
    Linton appeals his sentence, alleging that the district court erred in
    determining the quantity of crack attributable to him, in relying on
    information in the presentence reports of his co-defendants, and in
    making a two-level adjustment for aggravated role under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.1(c) (2000). Linton has also moved
    for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues,
    and has filed a pro se petition for emergency relief seeking to correct
    the record on appeal.* We grant leave to file the pro se brief, deny
    the petition for emergency relief, and affirm.
    At Lintons sentencing hearing, the government presented testimony from most of his co-defendants who had been scheduled to testify at his initial sentencing in 1997. However, their testimony
    differed markedly from statements they had given to investigators and
    before the grand jury three years earlier. The district court referred to
    the presentence reports of several witnesses to remind them of the
    amount of crack to which they themselves had stipulated when they
    were sentenced. Nonetheless, their testimony remained vague as to
    *Three months before Linton was sentenced, the government notified
    his attorney that "drug-related evidence" offered against him and other
    defendants would be retested because of inconsistencies discovered in
    the procedure used at the original laboratory. The issue was not raised at
    Lintons sentencing. He now seeks to have the substance offered against
    him retestd independently. In light of Lintons guilty plea to crack distribution and failure to challenge the drug type below, we do not find that
    the petition should be granted.

    UNITED STATES v. LINTON

    Lintons involvement, and they professed to recall dealing with only


    small amounts of crack. The district court continued sentencing and
    asked the probation officer to look into the possibility that the witnesses had been intimidated. At a second hearing, the probation officer reported that none of the witnesses admitted to receiving any
    direct threats or intimidation, but that a number of them said they felt
    distinctly uncomfortable giving testimony against Linton because
    they feared repercussions to themselves or their families. The district
    court decided that testimony of all but one witness at the first hearing
    was unreliable. The court determined the quantity of crack attributable to Linton by relying on the testimony of the one reliable witness,
    examining the grand jury testimony of two witnesses, and the debriefing statements of two witnesses. The court determined that Linton
    was responsible, for sentencing purposes, for 423.1 grams of crack.
    Linton contends that the court failed to rely on the most reliable
    evidence, that is, the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the sentencing hearing. He further asserts that the district courts estimation of
    the drug quantity is too speculative to be affirmed. However, the court
    determined that the witnesses testimony was not credible. We find
    no error in the courts decision to resort to other evidence it deemed
    more reliable. To resolve disputed issues at sentencing, the district
    court may consider any relevant information that has "sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." USSG 6A1.3. To
    protect the defendants right to be sentenced on accurate information,
    he must be afforded the opportunity to rebut or explain hearsay evidence that he claims is erroneous. United States v. Helton, 975 F.2d
    430, 434 (7th Cir. 1992).
    Linton cannot claim that he did not have access to the grand jury
    testimony and debriefing statements considered by the court, or that
    he had no opportunity to explain or rebut the information. Moreover,
    the sentencing guidelines permit the district court to estimate the drug
    quantity when there has been no seizure of drugs or when the amount
    seized does not reflect the scale of the offense. USSG 2D1.1, cmt.
    n.12.
    Linton also challenges the district courts use of his co-defendants
    presentence reports. As previously mentioned, the sentencing court
    may not rely on factual information from sources not disclosed to the

    UNITED STATES v. LINTON

    defendant. Helton, 975 F.2d at 434. To do so would deprive the


    defendant of his opportunity to explain and rebut any claimed errors
    in the information. See also United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 867
    (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that sentencing court may not adopt facts
    from co-defendants presentence report that was not disclosed to
    defendant). However, in this case, the district court did not use the
    presentence reports in such a manner. The court used them simply to
    test the credibility of the witnesses testifying under oath. In determining Lintons relevant conduct, the court relied on other information
    from sources available to Linton.
    Linton also contests the district courts determination that he had
    an aggravated role in the offense. We find that the court did not
    clearly err in finding that Linton, who regularly packaged and supplied a significant quantity crack to at least five crack dealers over at
    least six months, had a leadership role. United States v. Engleman,
    916 F.2d 182, 184-85 (4th Cir. 1990).
    We therefore affirm the sentence. We grant Lintons motion for
    leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. We deny his motion for
    emergency relief. We have considered the issues raised by Linton in
    his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. 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