Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-4892
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-BR-1)
Submitted:
August 1, 2011
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Aguirre Carranza pleaded guilty to possessing
with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a) (2006).
of
participating
in
conspiracy
to
distribute
500
grams
or
both
his
conviction
at
trial
and
his
Carranza
sentence.
We
affirm.
Carranza
claims
that
the
district
court
erred
by
novo.
2006).
the
verdict
evidence.
Smith,
451
is
F.3d
supported
at
216
by
substantial
(citations
omitted).
could
accept
as
adequate
and
sufficient
to
support
Reversal
prosecution,
below.
substantial
Testimony
evidence
established
that
sustains
Carranza
the
verdict
made
large,
month
cocaine,
but
span.
he
would
Carranza
sometimes
would
send
take
orders
others,
namely
for
the
his
two
told
authorities
that
he
picked
cocaine
at
one
argues
that
the
Governments
evidence
came
Moreover, much
In
In assessing a sentencing
2008).
Carranza takes issue with the district courts drugweight calculation, as it far exceeded the weight found by the
jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
(4th
Cir.
2010).
of
the
differing
burdens
and
the
sentencing
courts
drug-weight
finding
and
Carranzas conviction.
Carranza also argues that the district court erred in
enhancing his offense level by two points for his role as an
organizer,
activity
leader,
under
manager,
U.S.
or
Sentencing
4
supervisor
Guidelines
of
the
criminal
Manual
(USSG)
3B1.1(c) (2009).
to
Carranzas
use
of
his
brothers
as
deliverymen,
the
of
2D1.1(b)(1),
next
the
for
challenges
two-level
possession
of
the
district
courts
adjustment,
under
USSG
dangerous
weapon.
The
To support
v.
Manigan,
592
F.3d
621,
628-29
(4th
firearms
location
makes
it
readily
Cir.
United
2010)
[S]o long as
available
to
protect
there
will
be
sufficient
evidence
to
connect
the
evidence
showed
that
Carranza
left
his
loaded
a cocaine transaction.
the store with him while he consummated the deal, it was readily
available
to
him
transaction.
during
the
transportation
phase
of
the
last
challenge
to
the
district
courts
We review such a
261
[I]n
(4th
uniquely
Cir.
2002).
qualified
to
most
evaluate
cases
whether
district
to
grant
courts
or
are
deny
United
the
acceptance
of
responsibility
reduction
of
guilt,
conviction
through
trial
does
not
for
the
grouped
counts,
it
then
decides
whether
any
responsibilityshould
Hargrove,
478
F.3d
be
at
made
for
199.
the
grouped
defendant
offense.
must
accept
Id. at 200.
Carranza
denied
responsibility
for
the
conspiracy
By
The
because
sentences
of
sentence
under
Gall v.
Carranza
it
claims
was
United
deferential
States,
552
his
substantially
similarly-situated
a
that
longer
defendants.
abuse
U.S.
sentence
38,
of
51
We
discretion
(2007).
was
than
the
review
standard.
The
scant
brother,
Ebedo
Carranza-Aguirre
and
found
Carranza
to
be
the
7
manager
of
the
Livengood
The district
conspiracy;
therefore
affirm
Carranzas
conviction
and
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED