Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02009/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Lester Gatlin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

" 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC - :11990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER ------------- Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

HOWARD LESTER GATLIN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

No. 90-2009 

(D.C. No. CR-89-0093-JC-0l) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMEN'l'* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and BROWN,** 

District Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for 

the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of the case, res 

judicata or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States Senior District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2009 Document: 010110093935 Date Filed: 12/04/1990 Page: 1 
The defendant below challenges the sentence imposed by the 

district court. Defendant was charged by indictment with two 

counts of possession of controlled substances. Count One of the 

indictment alleged the possession of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, Count One was dismissed and the defendant pled guilty 

to Count Two, which charged him with possession with intent to 

distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana (21 u.s.c. §§ 

841 (a) (1) and (b) (1) (c)). In determining the offense level for 

Count Two, the district court considered both the amount of the 

marijuana and the cocaine in the defendant's possession. 1 The 

consideration of the cocaine possessed by the defendant caused the 

minimum guideline term for Count Two to exceed the statutory 

maximum for that offense. Consequently, the court sentenced the 

defendant on Count Two to the statutory maximum of sixty months 

imprisonment. See u.s.s.G. § 5Gl.l(a). 

The defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the court 

erred by considering the amount of cocaine in his possession as a 

determinant of the appropriate offense level for Count Two. He 

argues that the court may consider only the weight of the 

controlled substance that is associated with the count of 

conviction and may not consider substances related to counts that 

are dismissed. As counsel for appellant acknowledged, however, we 

rejected the same argument in United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 

1558 (10th Cir. 1990). In Rutter, we recognized that in this type 

1 No factual dispute is raised relating to the amount of 

cocaine involved or the fact of possession. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2009 Document: 010110093935 Date Filed: 12/04/1990 Page: 2 
of case the district court is not restricted only to the quantity 

of drug associated with the offense of conviction. Under u.s.s.G. 

§§ lBl.J(a) (2) and 3Dl.2(d), quantities from drug offenses "that 

were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan 

as the offense of conviction" are considered relevant conduct for 

determining the offense level. As we noted, the commentary to the 

guidelines could not be any clearer: 11 [I]n a drug distribution 

case, quantities and types of drugs not specified in the count of 

conviction are to be included in determining the offense level if 

they were part of the same course of conduct or part of a common 

scheme or plan as the count of conviction. 11 Rutter, 897 F. 2d at 

1561. The district court was not precluded from considering 

quantities of drugs that were associated with a count dismissed 

pursuant to a plea agreement. Rutter, 897 F. 2d at 1560 (Quantities 

of drugs associated with counts that were dismissed pursuant to a 

plea agreement were used to determine the appropriate offense level 

for the count of conviction). We find no error in the sentence 

imposed by the district court. 

AFFIRMED. 

3 

Entered for the Court 

Wesley E. Brown 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2009 Document: 010110093935 Date Filed: 12/04/1990 Page: 3