Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LARRY DANDINGS, JR, also known as Skeeter, also known as Skeet

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 17, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30088
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LARRY D ANDINGS, JR, also known as Skeeter, also known as Skeet
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-30044-2
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry D. Andings, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine
base and having a prior conviction for sentence enhancement
purposes. Andings argues that the district court erred by
determining that the drug transactions between him and Derrick
Smith were relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. For the
first time on appeal, Andings contends that the district court’s

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-30088
-2-
consideration of the hearsay statements of Smith and Asa Lee
Goldsmith at sentencing was erroneous because the hearsay
statements did not have sufficient indicia of reliability and
because considering them violated his confrontation and due
process rights. Andings concedes that his confrontation and due
process arguments are foreclosed, but requests that we make an
exception to our precedent because of the large increase in his
sentence. Also for the first time on appeal, Andings asserts
that the district court’s drug quantity determination was not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The
district court’s finding that the drug transactions between
Andings and Smith were relevant conduct was not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 589-91 (5th
Cir. 2000). As the hearsay statements had sufficient indicia of
reliability, the district court did not commit error, plain or
otherwise, by considering them at sentencing. See United States
v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996). As Andings
acknowledges, his confrontation and due process arguments are
foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v.
Young, 981 F.2d 180, 187-88 (5th Cir. 1992). We will not forge
an exception to our established precedent in this case because an
error that requires the extension of precedent to identify cannot
be plain error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 272

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-30088
-3-
(5th Cir. 1998). Finally, as the district court’s drug quantity
determination was not implausible in light of the evidence as a
whole, the district court did not commit error, plain or
otherwise, in making the drug quantity determination. See United
States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --