Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06049/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Thompson Cooper
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uoited Scates Court of Appeals 

Tench Ci~cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MARVIN THOMPSON COOPER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6049 

) (D.C. No. CR. 88-174-T) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and BALDOCK, 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Marvin Thompson Cooper appeals from his conviction and 

sentence for unlawfully attempting to manufacture amphetamine, 21 

u.s.c. § 846, based on a guilty plea. Cooper contends: (1) his 

conduct did not constitute an attempt to manufacture within the 

cognizance of the statute; (2) the court sentenced him as if he 

had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine; and 

* 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: 89-6049 Document: 010110042154 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 1 
(3) he should have been sentenced as a minor participant. We 

affirm. 

Initially, we agree with the government that Cooper's guilty 

plea precludes his challenge to the validity of the attempt 

conviction. See United States Y..!.. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1525-26 

(10th Cir. 1990) (entry of guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects); United States Y..!.. Hanyard, 762 F2d 1226, 

1230 (5th Cir. 1985) (entry of guilty plea precludes challenge to 

sufficiency of evidence). 

We disagree with Cooper's contention that he was sentenced 

under the conspiracy provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines 

rather than the attempt provisions. Paragraph 11 of the 

Presentence Report correctly applies Section 2D1.4 in determining 

the base offense level of an attempt. The fact the report may 

have jumbled its words in restating the rule for the base offense 

level is inconsequential in calculating the defendant's sentence 

because this provision establishes exactly the same base offense 

level for attempts and conspiracies. Thus, any mistake the 

district court might have made in the wording of the report would 

be harmless error. 

We also disagree with Cooper's contention that he should have 

been sentenced as a minor participant. The defendant bears the 

burden of proof in showing he is entitled to a sentence reduction 

under the Guidelines. See United States Y..!.. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 

1164 (10th Cir. 1990) (government bears burden for sentence 

increases; defendant bears burden for sentence decreases). 

Cooper's role in the offense is a factual finding subject to 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6049 Document: 010110042154 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 2 
C 

clearly erroneous review. United States Y.!.. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 

1177, 1181-82 (10th Cir. 1990). We cannot say the district 

court's failure to find that Cooper was a minor participant is 

clearly erroneous. The evidence before the court established that 

Cooper possessed numerous precursor chemicals for the manufacture 

of amphetamine and two recipes, and Cooper had traveled either on 

his own behalf or on behalf of another in purchasing the 

chemicals. Cooper also possessed firearms while carrying out the 

transfer. The district court did not err in finding Cooper was 

not a minor participant. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6049 Document: 010110042154 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 3