Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4612
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-DJJ-3)
Submitted:
Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.
and
WYNN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Charles Page Haines was sentenced to ninety-two months
of imprisonment following his conviction by a jury of conspiracy
to distribute twenty-eight grams or less of cocaine base, three
counts of distributing cocaine base, distributing heroin, and
maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a), 846, 856 (2012).
district
court
erred
in
evidence
of
his
prior
his
offense
level
under
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
We affirm.
opportunity,
identity,
absence
of
intent,
mistake,
preparation,
or
lack
of
plan,
accident
knowledge,
but
not
United States v.
Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks
omitted).
Potential
Rule
404(b)
evidence
should
be
its
unfair
prejudice
to
the
defendant.
United
States
v.
id.
Those
earlier
controlled
buys
involved
Haines
42 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312
(4th Cir. 2004) (reaching same result under analogous facts).
The
evidence
of
the
2010
controlled
buys
was
also
placed
issue,
his
knowledge
and
intent
at
evidence
of
his
from
of
the
admission
the
Rule
404(b)
evidence
did
not
Accordingly, the
Next,
application
double
Haines
of
USSG
counting
in
claims
that
2D1.1(b)(12)
light
of
his
the
district
constituted
conviction
United
States,
standard).
556
U.S.
129,
134-36
impermissible
under
856.
courts
21
U.S.C.
See Puckett v.
(2009)
(discussing
2D1.1(b)(12)
where
856.
See
USSG
2D1.1
Hampton,
628
F.3d
654,
defendant
cmt.
664
n.17;
(4th
is
see
Cir.
convicted
United
2010)
under
States
([T]here
v.
is
erred
primary
purpose
in
Haines
finding
for
which
contends
that
he
that
narcotics
maintained
the
district
distribution
his
court
was
residence.
See
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
(stating
standard
of
review).
However,
[m]anufacturing
or
USSG
dispense
conclusions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED