Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06318/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Lancy Clark
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Courc of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 13 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT LANCY CLARK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6318 

(D.C. No. CR-90-103-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Robert Laney Clark appeals the sentence imposed 

upon him after his guilty plea to two counts in a sixteen-count 

indictment. The plea was to count 13 charging him with distribution of two ounces of cocaine in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 2 and 21 

u.s.c. S 841(a)(l), and count 16, charging him with possession of 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6318 Document: 010110119430 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 1 
a firearm after conviction of a felony in violation of 18 u.s.c. 

§§ 922(g)(l) and 924(a). Defendant's only arguments on appeal 

relate to the district court's inclusion of quantities of drugs 

defendant acquired in transactions for which he was not convicted, 

as relevant conduct to increase his base offense level from 14 to 

32. 

The court relied upon u.s.s.G. § 1Bl.3(a)(2), which permits 

grouping "solely with respect to offenses of a character for which 

§ 3Dl.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all such 

acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or 

common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." 

specifically contends 

Defendant 

that the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing did 

not indicate that the other drug transactions were part 

of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan 

as to count 13, the offense of conviction. Nor did the 

trial court so find. Without this finding, the trial 

court was precluded from increasing the base offense 

level [under that section]. 

Appellant's brief at 6. We do not agree. 

The district court explicitly accepted hearsay evidence, 

outlined in the presentence report, that defendant made three 

separate trips to Los Angeles with Larry Hornsby, and each time 

purchased one kilogram of cocaine and brought it back to Oklahoma 

City for resale. The court further found that two deliveries of 

cocaine base were made to defendant by Kennetta Mitchell. These 

all occurred between January 1, 1988, and approximately April 30, 

1990, within the period of a conspiracy with which defendant was 

charged but to which he did not plead. The incidents were also 

the subjects of separate charges in the indictment against 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6318 Document: 010110119430 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 2 
.,, 

defendant, which were dropped when he pleaded guilty. Count 13, 

to which defendant did plead guilty, charged him with distributing 

two ounces of cocaine to Larry Hornsby in November 1989. 

Section 1Bl.3(a)(2) does not permit a district court to 

increase a defendant's offense level with crimes not specified in 

the count of conviction simply because they are similar in 

character. See United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490, 500 (7th 

Cir. 1989). However, under this court's interpretation of 

u.s.s.G. § 1Bl.3(a)(2), the instant district court properly 

determined that defendant's various drug exploits were all part of 

the same course of conduct. See,~, United States v. Harris, 

903 F.2d 770, 778 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Rutter, 897 

F.2d 1558, 1562 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 88 (1990). 

As to the alleged deficiency in the district court's findings, we are satisfied that a fair reading of the court's oral 

ruling at sentencing is that the acts were part of the same 

"course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of 

conviction." See II R. 36-37. Any doubts about that conclusion 

are cleared up in the court's formal sentencing order in which it 

made the following specific finding: 

The court finds that§ 1Bl.3(a)(2) is the proper provision for the inclusion of. the drug amounts. The 

§ 1Bl.3(a)(2) provision is applicable to offenses that, 

in the context of § 3D1.2(d) "would require grouping," 

and, "that were a part of the same course of conduct or 

common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." 

IR. tab 117 at 5. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6318 Document: 010110119430 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 3