Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03151/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edward Gray
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3151

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff – Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

James Edward Gray, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 2008

Filed: May 1, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James Edward Gray pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and brandishing a firearm in connection with a

drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He was sentenced

to 100 months on the drug manufacturing charge and to 84 months on the firearms

charge, to be served consecutively. On appeal Gray argues that the district court1

erred in calculating the quantity of drugs involved in his offense. We review a district

court's application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings

Appellate Case: 07-3151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2008 Entry ID: 3429194
-2-

including drug quantity for clear error. United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d 597, 607

(8th Cir. 2008). We will reverse its findings of drug quantity "only if the entire record

definitely and firmly convinces us that a mistake has been made." United States v.

Coleman, 148 F.3d 897, 901 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

We have consistently upheld the district court's authority to make factual

findings beyond the drug quantity alleged in an indictment. See United States v.

Hilliard, 490 F.3d 635, 641 (8th Cir. 2007) ("It is well settled that 'judicial findings

of drug quantity for sentencing purposes do not violate the Sixth Amendment when

made under an advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines regime.'"), quoting United States v.

Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 825 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821, 823

(8th Cir. 2006). In his signed confession Gray estimated that he cooked between 1/8

oz. and 1/4 oz. of methamphetamine every two weeks for 18 months. The district

court found that the drug quantity was approximately 126 grams, the lowest possible

amount based on the defendant's confession. At the sentencing hearing the agent who

took Gray's statement testified about what the defendant had told him about his drug

manufacturing and about the circumstances under which the confession was obtained.

Based on the evidence before the district court we conclude that its drug quantity

calculation is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2008 Entry ID: 3429194