Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02166/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Jordan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United Stares Court of .Appeals 

Tenth Circi.1it 

JUN 1 ~ 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-2166 

) (D.C. No. CR-90-00040-1-JC) 

EUGENE JORDAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Eugene Jordan pled guilty to one count of 

possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of a 

mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and 

aiding and abetting in violation of 21 u.s.c. SS 841(a), 

841(b)(l)(A) and 18 U.S.C. S 2 (1988). The district court 

sentenced Jordan to 190 months imprisonment based in part on its 

conclusion that Jordan had a category II criminal history under 

the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because of his prior sentence for 

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and using a 

* 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: 90-2166 Document: 010110119387 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 1 
firearm to facilitate that offense. 1 On appeal, Jordan challenges 

the district court's reliance on this prior sentence to calculate 

his criminal history category. We affirm. 2 

Section 4Al.2(a)(l) of the guidelines defines a "prior 

sentence" for purposes of the criminal history calculation as "any 

sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt .•. for 

conduct not part of the instant offense." U.S. S. G. § 4Al. 2 (a) ( 1) . 

This standard is met when the prior conviction arises out of 

"severable instances of unlawful conduct." United States v. 

Banashefski, 928 F.2d 349, 352 (10th Cir. 1991). 

In this case, the prior sentence considered by the district 

court was derived from federal agents' seizure of methamphetamine, 

cash, firearms and drug paraphernalia from Jordan's residence on 

December 8, 1989. Jordan was indicted in CR 89-496JC for drug 

trafficking offenses arising out of this search and seizure and 

ultimately found guilty by a jury of possession of methamphetamine 

with intent to distribute and a related firearms charge. The 

district court sentenced Jordan to 120 months imprisonment for 

this conviction on May 16, 1990. 

After being indicted in CR 89-496JC, Jordan was separately 

indicted in CR 90-40JC, the case presently before this court, for 

1 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 We review the district court's application of the sentencing 

guidelines to the facts under a due deference standard, while 

reviewing its legal conclusions regarding the guidelines de novo. 

See United States v. Smith, 900 F.2d 1442, 1445 (10th Cir. 1990). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2166 Document: 010110119387 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 2 
• 

offenses involving the manufacture and distribution of 

methamphetamine at another location, the Fawners' residence, on 

and before October 15, 1989. This indictment arose out of the 

October 15, 1989, discovery of a methamphetamine laboratory at 

this location and the Fawners' identification of Jordan and a 

partner as the lab operators. Pursuant to a 

Jordan ultimately pled guilty in this case 

plea agreement, 

to one count of 

possession with intent to distribute a mixture containing a 

detectable amount of methamphetamine in return for the government 

dismissing charges relating to Jordan's alleged manufacture of 

methamphetamine at the lab. 

In sentencing Jordan for this second methamphetamine 

distribution offense, the district court considered the sentence 

imposed in CR 89-496JC to be a prior sentence under 

section 4Al.2(a)(l) of the sentencing guidelines. Jordan claims, 

however, that this earlier sentence for his December 1989 drug 

trafficking was so related to the instant offense that it was part 

of that offense and hence should not have been considered in 

determining his criminal history under the guidelines. In 

particular, Jordan alleges that the methamphetamine that was 

seized from his residence on December 8, 1989, and formed the 

basis for his conviction in CR 89-496JC was manufactured at the 

Fawner lab in October, 1989, the period for which he was charged 

in the instant case, and thus was a part of the offense for which 

he was sentenced in this case. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2166 Document: 010110119387 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 3 
... 

Jordan cites no evidence in support of this assertion. 3 In 

fact, the record shows that Jordan's counsel at his trial in 

CR 89-496JC specifically disclaimed any connection between the 

methamphetamine found at Jordan's residence in December 1989 and 

that produced at the Fawner lab. CR 89-496JC, Tr. 3/5/90 at 65. 

That trial also produced evidence that Jordan was selling 

methamphetamine out of his residence before the Fawner lab went 

into production in early October, 1989, id. at 74, 77-78, 80, 

106-07, indicating that the lab was not Jordan's sole source for 

the drugs he sold out of his home. We cannot agree, moreover, 

that Jordan's December 8, 1989, distribution offense was "part of" 

his October 15, 1989, distribution offense merely because both 

offenses concerned Jordan's possession of methamphetamine. 

In light of this conclusion, and the temporal and spatial 

distinction between the conduct underlying the October 1989 and 

December 1989 offenses, we conclude that Jordan's conduct in each 

instance was severable and that the district court did not err in 

using the sentence imposed in connection with the December 1989 

drug trafficking charge as a prior sentence within the meaning of 

3 Jordan claims on appeal that he made a proffer of such 

evidence at his sentencing hearing. The transcript of this 

hearing does not reveal any proffer beyond Jordan's bare assertion 

that the methamphetamine seized from Jordan's residence in 

December 1989 came from the Fawner lab. See CR 40-90JC, 

Tr. 7/18/90 at 132. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2166 Document: 010110119387 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 4 
section 4Al.2(a)(l). Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the 

district court in this case is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-2166 Document: 010110119387 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 5