Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03234/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David Allen Van Omen
Appellant

Document Text:

\ FILED 

United Stata Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Tenth circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 111990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 89-3234 

) ( D. C. No. 89-20001-01) 

DAVID ALLEN VAN OMEN, ) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRATTON,** District 

Judge. 

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. 

David Van Omen appeals the order of the district court 

sentencing him to ten years for conspiracy to distribute one 

kilogram of cocaine in violation of 21 u.s.c. sections 846 and 

84l(a)(l). Van Omen contends that the district court erred in 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Howard C. Bratton, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3234 Document: 010110036172 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
imposing an enhanced sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 

84l(a)(l)(B) where: (1) the charging language of the indictment 

did not specify the quantity of cocaine, although the overt act 

language did; and (2) the government's notice of prior conviction 

incorrectly stated his prior offense. We affirm. 

Van Omen contends that the government's failure to allege 

properly the quantity of cocaine prevents imposition of the 

enhanced sentence mandated by 21 u.s.c. section 84l(b)(l)(B). Van 

Omen relies on United States~ Crockett, 812 F.2d 626 (10th Cir. 

1987). The rule in Crockett, however, was reconsidered in light 

of the Guidelines, in United States v. Ware, Nos. 88-2581, 88-2584 

(10th Cir. Mar. 9, 1990). In Ware, we held that a judge may 

consider quantities of drugs involved in a crime but not charged 

in the indictment in determining the base offense level during 

sentencing under the Guidelines. Id., slip op. at 9-10; see also 

United States v. Frederick, 897 F.2d 490, 494 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Furthermore, count I of the indictment stated that Van Omen 

had initially sought to arrange a multi-kilo drug deal and that 

ultimately one kilogram had been delivered. In our view the 

inclusion of this specific quantity reference, albeit in the 

"overt act" language of the indictment rather than the charging 

language, is sufficient. It is a long-standing rule that in 

determining the sufficiency of an indictment the entire document 

must be read. See United States~ Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 

F.2d 902, 906-07 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 837 

(1990); United States~ Metropolitan Enters., Inc., 728 F.2d 444, 

453 (10th . Cir. 1984). We are not persuaded by Van _omen's 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3234 Document: 010110036172 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
contention that because "overt acts" language is not necessary to 

support the indictment's allegation of conspiracy, the language 

should be treated as mere surplusage and hence disregarded. The 

district court did not err in holding that the indictment 

adequately charged Van Omen with conspiracy with intent to 

distribute one kilogram of cocaine. 

Van Omen's second contention on appeal is that the government 

failed to comply with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. section 851, 

which governs sentence enhancements due to prior drug offenses. 

The government filed an "Information of Prior Conviction'' on April 

29, 1989, which stated: 

The United States Attorney charges that on or about 

April 15, 1981, in the District of Colorado, DAVID ALLEN 

VAN OMEN, defendant herein, was convicted of conspiracy 

to deliver cocaine, in violation of Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 84l(a). The United State Attorney 

hereby gives notice that he will rely on this previous 

conviction in asking the Court to sentence DAVID ALLEN 

VAN . OMEN to an increased punishment, as set forth in 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 84l(a)(l) and 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 851. 

Van Omen contests the accuracy of this statement, contending that 

(1) he was convicted of distribution of cocaine, not conspiracy to 

distribute; and (2) the "Information" states it was based on 

sections 84l(a)(l) and 851 when it is section 84l(b) that 

addresses sentencing for the substantive offenses. Van Omen 

contends that because the information in the "Information" was 

inaccurate he cannot be given an enhanced sentence. We disagree. 

In this case the government's "Information" gave Van Omen the 

requisite notice required by 21 U.S.C. section 851. The date and 

place of conviction were accurate; the citation to 21 U.S.C. 

section 84l(a)(l) was accurate. The only inaccuracy was the 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3234 Document: 010110036172 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3 
r 

• 

formal name of the offense. The error in citing section 84l(a}(l} 

rather than section 84l(b} is similarly insubstantial. The cases 

cited by Van Omen are inapposite because they either involved no 

notice at all before sentencing or merely alleged "the existence 

of a prior conviction cognizable under Title 21, United States 

Code." See United States~ Wirshing, 662 F. Supp. 199 (D. Nev. 

1987). In this case Van Omen was specifically informed of the 

date and place of conviction. Van Omen had substantial notice 

that his conviction would be enhanced by his prior distribution 

conviction. The district court did not err in finding that any 

error in the government's "Information'' was harmless. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3234 Document: 010110036172 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 4