Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06238/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan James Carel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

Unit.ed Sm~ C:~~f Appeab UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Te--;~~ '- " "CUl~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR O 3 1992 

P..OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk · ~ V 

v. ) No. 91-6238 

BRYAN JAMES CAREL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CR-89-121-P) 

) (W. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before EBEL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior 

States District Court for the District of 

designation. 

District Judge, United 

Colorado, sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral a r gument. 

The case 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 purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

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

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 1 
Defendant appeals the district court's denial of his motion, 

asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, to amend his presentence 

report. That motion requested that the district court strike 

information in the report which, in light of newly obtained 

evidence, was inaccurate. The district court had jurisdiction, 

under Rule 32, to consider this motion . United States v. Hart, 

922 F.2d 613, 615 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. 

Golightly. 811 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1987)). Upon consideration of 

the record and the parties' arguments, we affirm the district 

court's decision. 

In 1989, Defendant pled guilty to one count of filing a false 

income tax return, 26 u.s.c. § 7201, and one count of filing a 

false statement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 18 

U.S.C. § 1001. The presentence report indicated that these 

convictions stemmed from Defendant's involvement in illegal drug 

activities. Specifically, the presentence report asserted, among 

other things, that Defendant was involved in the purchase and 

resale of aircraft to drug traffickers. In support of this 

contention, the presentence report documented Defendant's purchase 

of several airplanes which he in turn sold to "drug smugglers." 

According to the report, authorities seized one of these airplanes 

in Roswell, New Mexico, loaded with twenty-two kilograms of 

cocaine . 

Following a sentencing hearing, held October 10, 1989, the 

district court sentenced Defendant to five years' imprisonment on 

each count, with the second term of imprisonment suspended on the 

condition that Defendant serve a five-year term of probation, to 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 2 
run consecutively to the first five-year prison term. III R. at 

10. Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. 

Defendant filed this Rule 32 motion on June 5, 1991, seeking 

amendment of the presentence report through deletion of language 

connecting Defendant to the sale of the airplane seized in New 

Mexico. In support of this motion, Defendant asserted that he had 

newly obtained evidence, in the form of a newspaper article, 

published in the Roswell (N.M.) Daily Register on March 21, 1986, 

which identified the seized airplane as a "single engine 1979 Aero 

Commander." See IR. doc. 20, ex. 1. Defendant further asserts 

that FAA records indicate that the airplane referred to in the 

presentence report, "an Aero Commander (N46906}," Supp. IR., doc. 

6, ex. B, is a 1959 twin-engine aircraft, IR. doc. 20, exs. la 

and lb. According to Defendant, this evidence establishes that 

the cocaine-laden airplane seized in New Mexico was not the same 

airplane that he purchased and then resold in 1985. 

On appeal, Defendant first argues that the district court 

violated Rule 32 by failing to make specific factual findings, at 

the sentencing hearing, concerning Defendant's connection with the 

airplane seized in New Mexico. Rule 32(c) (3) (D) requires a 

sentencing court either to make findings or to determine that 

findings are unnecessary because the court will not consider the 

disputed issue in sentencing only "[i]f the comments of the 

defendant and the defendant's counsel or testimony or other 

information introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in 

the presentence investigation report." 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 3 
Although Defendant's attorney, at sentencing, questioned the 

presentence report's conclusion that Defendant's convictions 

resulted from his involvement in illegal drug activities and 

challenged the report's imputing to Defendant knowledge of his 

customers' drug trafficking, III R. at 4-6, neither Defendant nor 

his attorney ever objected to the information in the presentence 

report linking Defendant to the purchase and resale of the 

airplane seized in New Mexico. Failure to raise a factual dispute 

before the district court at sentencing constitutes a waiver of 

that issue. See United States v. Saucedo, 950 F.2d 1508, 1518 

(10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 

814-15 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 (1989). 

Defendant further contends, however, that his attorney 

provided ineffective assistance by failing 

information in the presentence report linking 

seized plane. In order to establish that 

to object to this 

Defendant to the 

his counsel was 

constitutionally ineffective, Defendant must prove both that 

counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient 

performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). An attorney's performance is deficient if 

it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 

688. "The reasonableness of counsel's performance is to be 

evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged 

error and in light of all the circumstances, and the standard of 

review is highly deferential." Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 

365, 381 (1986) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). our review 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 4 
of the ultimate legal issues involved is plenary. 

v. Miller, 907 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1990). 

United States 

Defendant fails to assert any basis, of which defense counsel 

knew or reasonably should have known at the time of sentencing, 

which would have supported an objection to the information in the 

presentence report linking Defendant to the seized airplane. 

Although defense counsel does have a duty to make a reasonable 

investigation of the facts or to make a reasonable decision that a 

particular investigation is unnecessary, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

691, the reasonableness of an attorney's investigation or decision 

not to investigate "'is directly related to the information the 

defendant ... supplie[s).'" Miller, 907 F.2d at 999 (quoting 

Coleman v. Brown, 802 F.2d 1227, 1233 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. 

denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987)). Defendant was certainly in a better 

position than defense counsel to know whether Defendant was 

involved in a transaction for the purchase and resale of an 

airplane and, if so, what type of aircraft was involved in that 

transaction. Defendant does not assert that defense counsel 

disregarded any information provided by Defendant before 

sentencing which would have supported an objection to this 

information or that would have indicated to counsel that further 

investigation of that information was necessary. Review of the 

record, thus, fails to reveal any ineffective representation. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 5 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-6238 Document: 010110239125 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 6