Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02147/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Preciado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 

TeT\th circuit 

AUG O 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DANIEL PRECIADO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2147 

(D.C. No. 89-68JC-01) 

(D.N.M. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Daniel Preciado was indicted on February 17, 1989, 

for conspiring to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine 

between February 8 and 9, 1989, and for possessing with intent to 

distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine. In a separate 

indictment issued on the same day, Preciado was charged with three 

counts of intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine on 

August 8, 18, and 30, 1989. Preciado agreed to plead guilty to 

Count II of the first indictment in exchange for the Government's 

agreement to move for dismissal of the remaining counts. After a 

sentencing hearing, the district court set Preciado's base offense 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 89-2147 Document: 010110039631 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 1 
level at 22, reduced it by two for acceptance of responsibility, 

set the criminal history at category II, and sentenced Preciado to 

thirty-nine months imprisonment followed by four years of 

supervised release. Preciado appeals his sentence, and we affirm. 

Preciado makes two principal arguments on appeal. First, he 

contends that the district court improperly considered the 139.7 

grams of cocaine from the August transactions, as described in the 

dismissed indictment, in setting his base offense level. 

Specifically, he argues that the district court failed to make a 

finding that the August transactions were part of "the same course 

of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction," 

as required by Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1Bl.3(a)(2)~ 

While this argument is the primary one Preciado makes on appeal, 

he did not make it before the district court, and so is precluded 

from raising it here. The Addendum to the Presentence Report 

indicated that Preciado was involved in a seven-month long ongoing 

drug distribution scheme. Preciado did not respond to the report 

by making a fact-based argument regarding a lack of common scheme 

before the district court, however. Instead, Preciado made a 

legal argument only, contending that drugs can be accumulated to 

determine the applicable guideline range, but not the base offense 

level. See rec., vol. III, at 9-11. We will not consider the 

common-scheme argument for the first time on appeal. 1 

1 Even if we considered Preciado's argument, it would not lead 

us to conclude that the district court failed to find he was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2147 Document: 010110039631 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 2 
With respect to Preciado's legal argument that the guidelines 

do not clearly allow consideration of conduct for which a 

defendant has not been convicted in establishing a base offense 

level, we have explicitly rejected that argument. See United 

States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 1562 (10th Cir. 1990), petition 

for cert. filed, May 15, 1990. 2 

Preciado's second argument is that the district court erred 

by failing to find that he was a "minor participant," as the 

parties had stipulated in the plea agreement. However, the 

stipulation specifically stated that it was not binding on the 

court. Reviewing the court's determination under the clearly 

erroneous standard, see United States v. Oliva-Gambini, 

__ F.2d __ , __ ,No. 89-1312, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. July 24, 

1990), we conclude that the record supports the court's finding 

that Preciado failed to prove he was a minor participant. See 

engaged in a common scheme. The court found that Preciado's "act 

included negotiating and distribution of cocaine during a 

prolonged period of time with undercover agents." Rec., vol. III, 

at 17. Although the court did not use the exact words "common 

scheme," the court had before it the Presentence Report which did 

so refer to Preciado's conduct, and the court's finding therefore 

must be interpreted in this context. 

2 Preciado relies on United States v. Restrepo, 883 F.2d 781, 

786 (9th Cir. 1989). We rejected the result in Restrepo in our 

opinion in United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 1562 (10th Cir. 

1990). Additionally, Restrepo has now been withdrawn and 

rehearing granted. See United States v. Restrepo, 896 F.2d 1228 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2147 Document: 010110039631 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 3 
United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990) 

(defendant bears burden of proof for sentence decreases). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2147 Document: 010110039631 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 4