Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02164/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shelbourne Selwyn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence J. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2164

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Shelbourne Selwyn, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2004

Filed: February 23, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Following a jury trial, Shelbourne Selwyn was convicted of possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine or aiding and abetting possession with intent

to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district

court1

 sentenced Selwyn to 21 months of imprisonment with three years of supervised

release. On appeal, Selwyn claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction and further challenges the sentence imposed by the district court. We

affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing. 

Appellate Case: 04-2164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2005 Entry ID: 1870536 
-2-

BACKGROUND

We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. United

States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003). On March 12, 2003, Bureau

of Indian Affairs (BIA) Officer Stephanie Star and BIA Special Agent Randy

Vettleson went to Selwyn’s home to investigate a report that Selwyn was using

methamphetamine while children were present. At his home, Selwyn consented to

a urinalysis and to the search of his home. Selwyn admitted methamphetamine use

after the officers told him that the urinalysis was positive for drug use. Selwyn also

admitted possession of drug paraphernalia, including plastic baggies, light bulbs and

pen tubes found in the house. In a locked safe, the officers found nine baggies of

methamphetamine, $150, a scale measuring up to one gram, and other drug

paraphernalia. The baggies of methamphetamine were separated by size, with smaller

baggies in one ziplock bag, and larger baggies in another ziplock bag. Selwyn denied

ownership of the methamphetamine in the safe, and denied that he was associated

with the distribution of methamphetamine. 

At trial, Alice Waln testified that she purchased methamphetamine from

Selwyn on March 11, 2003. She entered Selwyn’s home and followed Selwyn to a

back bedroom where she watched him take the methamphetamine from a locked

compartment. She paid him $25 for the drug and left. Later in the day, she called

Selwyn and returned to purchase another $25 worth of methamphetamine. Rena

Rainbow also testified that she went to Selwyn’s home three or four times in February

and March of 2003 to purchase methamphetamine. On one occasion, she followed

Selwyn into a back bedroom and saw him take methamphetamine from a closet to sell

to her. 

A jury convicted Selwyn of possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine or aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine. The jury did not make any finding regarding the amount of

Appellate Case: 04-2164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2005 Entry ID: 1870536 
-3-

methamphetamine involved. Selwyn’s presentence report suggested that he

possessed 17.7 grams of methamphetamine for distribution. Selwyn objected to this

portion of the report, claiming that methamphetamine he kept for personal use should

be deducted. At sentencing, the district court found that some of the

methamphetamine was used rather than sold and concluded that Selwyn possessed a

total of 7.17 grams for distribution. The district court denied the defendant’s motion

for downward departure based on family ties and responsibilities, and denied

Selwyn’s motion for a two-point reduction as a minor participant in the

methamphetamine sales. The court determined that Selwyn had a guideline range of

21 to 27 months and sentenced Selwyn to 21 months imprisonment. 

Selwyn appeals, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction, that the court erred in sentencing by denying a downward departure based

on family ties, not reducing his offense level as a minor participant, and that he was

sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the sentence was based on

drug quantity findings not admitted by Selwyn or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. 

 

ANALYSIS

Because Selwyn did not move for acquittal at the close of the government’s

case, our review is for plain error. United States v. McCaghren, 666 F.2d 1227, 1232

(8th Cir. 1981). We review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, and

will resolve conflicts in favor of the verdict; we will sustain the verdict if there is any

interpretation of the evidence that could lead a reasonable-minded jury to find the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d

1144, 1148-49 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Selwyn argues essentially that the methamphetamine found in the house was

intended for personal use, and that he was neither involved in, nor aware of, the

Appellate Case: 04-2164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2005 Entry ID: 1870536 
-4-

methamphetamine sales. Two witnesses testified that they personally purchased

methamphetamine from Selwyn, and that they saw Selwyn remove the

methamphetamine from the locked case in the bedroom. Selwyn asserts that Alice

Waln’s testimony was not a sufficient basis for his conviction because it was

inconsistent in some details. These inconsistencies may have had some impact on the

believability of Waln’s testimony; however, “we can neither weigh the evidence nor

assess the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Stroh, 176 F.3d 439, 440 (8th

Cir 1999). Waln’s testimony adequately supports the jury’s conclusion that Selwyn

was involved in the sale of methamphetamine. We therefore affirm Selwyn’s

conviction. 

 Selwyn contends that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

No drug quantity was stated in the indictment or found by the jury. The district court

determined at sentencing that Selwyn possessed 7.17 grams for distribution, which

increased Selwyn’s base offense level from 12 to 16 and the sentencing range from

10 to 16 months to 21 to 27 months. Compare USSG § 2D1.1(c)(14) with §

2D1.1(c)(12). Facts “necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum

authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be

admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). Selwyn objected to drug quantity

findings, preserving this issue for appeal. See United States v. Fox, No. 03-3554;

2005 WL 195429 at *8 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2005). We therefore remand to the district

court for resentencing. Because Selwyn is entitled to resentencing in light of Booker,

we do not address Selwyn’s additional claims beyond noting that they may be

considered at the new sentencing proceeding.

Appellate Case: 04-2164 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2005 Entry ID: 1870536 
-5-

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the district court and remand for reconsideration of

Selwyn’s sentence. We deny Selwyn's motion to file a supplemental brief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2164 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/2005 Entry ID: 1870536