Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03401/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03401-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

FI Lb D 

United Sta~ C~μrtof A.ppesm Ter,.!.. , ·-.. n.it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 '7 ,~~~ 

----------ROBERTL.HOECKER 

RONALD DALE BAUGHMAN, Clerk 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 92-3401 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-3335) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ronald Dale Baughman was charged with five counts of 

distributing cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. He 

pled guilty and was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment. He 

subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3401 Document: 010110220135 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 1 
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), which was denied by the district 

court. Mr. Baughman appeals, and we affirm. 

Mr. Baughman's drug trafficking activity occurred from August 

1988 to November 1989. The first three charges against him 

involved the sale of one ounce of cocaine. The next two charges 

alleged that he and a codefendant, David Martinez, distributed 

one-fourth pound and one pound o f cocaine respectively. The sixth 

count charged Mr. Baughman and a codefendant, John Estes, with 

possession of 4.2 kilograms of cocaine. Mr. Estes agreed to 

testify against Mr. Baughman and received a sentence of 24 months. 

The charges were apparently dropped against Mr. Martinez. 

Mr. Baughman claims that he is a victim of "sentencing 

entrapment." He argues that the government delayed arresting him 

until the quantity of cocaine being trafficked was sufficiently 

large to result in a significantly larger term of imprisonment. 

Mr. Baughman also complains that he was denied equal protection 

and due process because of the sentence disparity among him and 

his codefendants, primarily Mr. Estes. This disparity in 

sentencing, argues Mr. Baughman, is contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a) (6), which expresses Congress' intent to avoid disparities 

among similarly situated defendants. 

Mr. Baughman cites two Eighth Circuit cases which mention 

sentencing entrapment in dicta, but those cases did not permit the 

defense. See United States v. Lenfesty, 923 F.2d 1293, 1300 (8th 

Cir.) cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1602 (1991) ; United States v. 

Stuart, 923 F.2d 607, 614 (8th Cir. ) , cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3401 Document: 010110220135 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 2 
1599 (1991) . More recently, the Eighth Circuit held that "sentencing entrapment may be legally relied upon to depart under the 

sentencing guidelines," United States v. Barth, 1993 U.S. App. 

Lexis 6930 (8th Cir. April 6, 1993), but the court found the 

evidence there insufficient to support the claim, id. at *10. The 

court said that "when a sufficiently egregious case arises, the 

sentencing court may deal with the situation by excluding the 

tainted transaction or departing from the sentencing guidelines." 

Id.; see also United States v. Connell, 960 F.2d 191, 194, 196 n.3 

(1st Cir. 1992) (recharacterizing defendant's sentencing entrapment claim as a claim of "sentencing factor manipulation." ) . 

The Eighth Circuit also cautioned that 111 courts should go 

very slowly before staking out rules that will deter government 

agents from the performance of their investigative duties.'" 

Barth, 1993 U.S. App. at *9 (quoting Connell , 960 F.2d at 196 

n.3). In drug investigations, "[p]olice must be given sufficient 

leeway to construct cases built on evidence that proves guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Police also must be given leeway to 

probe the depth and extent of a criminal enterprise, to determine 

whether coconspirators exist, and to trace the drug deeper into 

the distribution hierarchy." United States v . Calva , 979 F.2d 

119, 122 (8th Cir. 1992). On the record in the present case, we 

are not persuaded that Mr . Baughman was the victim of sentencing 

entrapment. 

Mr. Baughman also complains of the disparity between his 

sentence and the sentences of his codefendants. The sentencing 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3401 Document: 010110220135 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 3 
guidelines reflect an intent to reduce the disparity of sentencing 

among defendants who are similarly situated. See U.S.S . G. § lA.3, 

p.s. Mr. Baughman argues that this intent is thwarted since his 

codefendants received less severe punishment than did Mr. 

Baughman. The codefendants, however, were not similarly situated 

to Mr. Baughman. Mr. Estes agreed to cooperate in the 

investigation and to testify, if necessary, against Mr. Baughman. 

Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, the government moved for a 

downward departure of Mr. Estes' sentence. The sentence disparity 

this situation creates "does not offend equal protection because a 

rational connection exists between obtaining information concerning narcotics and providing an opportunity for a sentence 

reduction in exchange for such information. Thus, the disparity 

between defendant's sentence and that of his codefendants is 

explainable because of different circumstances." United States v. 

Horn, 946 F.2d 738, 746 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); see 

also United States v. Trujillo, 906 F.2d 1456, 1465 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 396 (1990). Finally, if the charges were 

dropped against Mr. Martinez, he was obviously not convicted of a 

crime and could not receive a sentence . 

The district court 's denial of Mr. Baughman's section 2255 

habeas corpus petition is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3401 Document: 010110220135 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 4