United States v. Francisco Chanes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 22-4597
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4597 Doc: 48 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SIXTO MARQUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-4597

FRANCISCO CHANES,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00074-TSK-MJA-8; 1:20- cr-00074-TSK-MJA-9)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: July 31, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4597 Doc: 48 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Noell P. Tin, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant Sixto Marquez. Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant Francisco Chanes. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4597 Doc: 48 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Sixto Marquez and Francisco Chanes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, and fentanyl,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846, and use of a communication facility

to facilitate drug distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), (d)(1). The district court

sentenced both Marquez and Chanes to a total of 188 months of imprisonment, and they

both appealed. On appeal, Marquez and Chanes argue that the district court clearly erred

in calculating the drug weight attributable to them under the Sentencing Guidelines. We

affirm.

We review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021). In

reviewing for procedural reasonableness, we ensure that the district court “committed no

significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, selecting

a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen

sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In assessing [a] challenge to the district

court’s Guidelines application, we review factual findings for clear error and legal

conclusions de novo.” United States v. Boyd, 55 F.4th 272, 276 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “In so doing, we afford great deference to a district judge’s

credibility determinations and how the court may choose to weigh the evidence.” United

States v. Williamson, 953 F.3d 264, 273 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“For sentencing purposes, the government must prove the drug quantity attributable

to a particular defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Bell, 667

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4597 Doc: 48 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir. 2011). “Under the Guidelines, where there is no drug seizure or

the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate the

quantity of the controlled substance.” Williamson, 953 F.3d at 273 (cleaned up). A district

court has “considerable leeway in crafting this estimate . . . [and] may give weight to any

relevant information before it, including uncorroborated hearsay, provided that the

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, “[d]istrict courts must still exercise caution in

estimating drug quantity at sentencing, and not attribute speculative or scantily supported

amounts to defendants.” Id.

We discern no clear error in the district court’s factual findings. The district court

considered the information in the presentence reports, the testimony presented by the

Government at both Marquez’s and Chanes’ sentencing hearings, and the recorded phone

calls, text messages, and package shipping receipts before ultimately finding that the

Government’s evidence was credible and provided a reliable estimate of the relevant drug

weight. The court thus reasonably estimated the drug weights based on the Government’s

evidence. Marquez and Chanes fail to show that the district court clearly erred in

calculating the drug weight for sentencing based on a preponderance of the evidence.

We therefore affirm the criminal judgments. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED