Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06112/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derwin Prescott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILrJD 

United States Coprt <?f Ap~ls Tenth C1rcu1t; 

FEB 2 51992. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. ) No . 91-6112 

DERWIN PRESCOTT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CR-90-225-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges 

Defendant-Appellant, Derwin Prescott, pled guilty in the 

district court to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute and distribution of cocaine base. He was sentenced 

to imprisonment for a term of 188 months, the bottom of the 

guideline range. 

Defendant elected to appeal his conviction, prompti ng his 

attorney to file a brief pursuant to the procedur e required by 

Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S . 738 (1967), in which he noted 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court withi n the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctri nes of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6112 Document: 010110226147 Date Filed: 02/25/1992 Page: 1 
issues from the record that might arguably support this appeal. 

We address these issues in the order presented and affirm. 1 

Initially we note that the presentence report, to which 

Defendant did not object, and Defendant's guilty plea c ontradict 

all of the arguments Defendant makes here. Because Defendant 

raised no objection to the presentence report, he has waived his 

right to dispute its contents. United States v. Rios-Ramirez, 929 

F.2d 563, 566 n.2 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, we briefly 

address each of Defendant's contentions. 

Defendant first argues that the illegal firearm seized during 

the search of the premises was not "possessed during the 

commission of the offense" for purposes of section 2Dl.l(b) (1) of 

the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 2 The presentence report 

states, however, that Defendant acknowledged operating a crack 

house and that a loaded twelve-gauge shotgun with an illegal 

barrel length was found during the execution of a search warrant 

for the premises. Application note 3 to section 2D.1.1 of the 

sentencing guidelines provides that an upward adjustment should be 

applied when a weapon is present, "unless it is clearly improbable 

that the weapon was connected with the offense . " There was no 

showing that the gun was unconnected with the offense, and because 

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 Fe d. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

2 U.S. S. G. § 2Dl. 1 ( b) ( 1) provides " [ i] f a dangerous weapon 

(including a firearm) was possessed [in the course of the unlawful 

manufacturing, importing, exporting, or trafficking, including 

possession with intent to commit these offenses], increase by 2 

levels." 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6112 Document: 010110226147 Date Filed: 02/25/1992 Page: 2 
firearms have been recognized as facilitating the successful 

operation of a crack house, United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 

1397, 1402-03 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2033 

(1991), Defendant's argument regarding improper enhancement fails. 

Defendant next speculates that the court may have relied on 

extraneous information about Defendant's codefendant when arriving 

at Defendant's sentence. There was ample evidence in the 

presentence report, however, to support Defendant's sentence 

without the use of any extraneous inforrnation. 3 The total weight 

of cocaine base attributable to Defendant was 280.9 grams which 

accurately translated into a base level offense of 34. U.S.S.G. 

§ 2Dl.l. The weight of cocaine base was aggregated from the two 

sales by Defendant to undercover agents and the cocaine base found 

on the premises. Defendant aknowledged that he was operating a 

crack house, and the presence of a shotgun on the premises is 

undisputed. 

Additionally, even if the district court had considered 

matters relating to Defendant's codefendant, such consideration 

would not have been error. "[C]ourts have traditionally been 

allowed to consider all sources of information in formulating an 

appropriate sentence." United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 

1179 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3302 (1990) (rejecting 

argument that district court erred by considering testimony from 

trial of defendant's coconspirators when sentencing defendant); 

United States v. Davis, 912 F.2d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1990) 

3 The accuracy of the information in the presentence report was 

admitted by Defendant's attorney. Anders Brief at 6. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6112 Document: 010110226147 Date Filed: 02/25/1992 Page: 3 
(approving use of information obtained from codefendants as basis 

for upward departure). 

Defendant next complains that the district court did not make 

an express finding of accuracy regarding the quantity of drugs 

involved. The district court, however, was not required to make 

such a finding because Defendant did not challenge the information 

contained in the presentence report. See United States v. 

Strayer, 846 F.2d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing options 

available to sentencing court when a defendant alleges factual 

inaccuracy); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D). 

Defendant also argues that the district court erred in 

refusing to grant a downward departure of his sentence. Absent 

any indication that the district court thought itself lacking the 

power to grant such a departure, this issue is not appealable. 

United States v. Westmoreland, 911 F.2d 398, 398 (10th Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Richardson, 901 F.2d 867, 869-70 (10th Cir. 

1990) . 

After Defendant's attorney filed the Anders brief, Defendant 

himself filed a supplemental brief in which he argued that he had 

only been visiting the premises involved and that he "had no 

shotgun," and that the drugs he was distributing were only a "very 

low grade" cocaine and not crack or any other derivative of 

cocaine base. Prescott Supporting Brief at 1. Defendant's 

contention regarding possession of the shotgun has been addressed 

above. The argument that the drug involved was "ver y low grade" 

is belied by Defendant's guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6112 Document: 010110226147 Date Filed: 02/25/1992 Page: 4 
base. In addition, the presentence report stated that unde r c ove r 

officers purchased cocaine base from Defendant. After his guilty 

plea and in view of the fact that Defendant did not challenge the 

presentence report, he cannot now be heard to contend that he 

distributed only a "very low grade" drug. 

The judgment of the district court for the Western District 

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour, 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6112 Document: 010110226147 Date Filed: 02/25/1992 Page: 5