Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01072/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Coleman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

~ 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uo.ited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cira.iit 

TENTH CIRCUIT JAN 2 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Clerk 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

"' ) 

v. ) No. 89-1072 

) ( D. C. No. 88-CR-325-1) 

KENNETH COLEMAN, ) ( D. Colorado) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

Defendant Kenneth Coleman appeals his conviction on three 

counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l). He raises two issues on 

* 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: 89-1072 Document: 01019961715 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 1 
appeal: (1) whether the court abused its discretion in denying 

defense counsel's motion for a continuance and to allow counsel to 

withdraw from representation of defendant; and (2) whether the 

court violated his rights by imposing a sentence above the 

Sentencing Guidelines range. 

Defense counsel in this case, who had nearly two months to 

prepare for trial, on the day and at the time trial was to 

commence requested a continuance and made an oral motion to 

withdraw as defendant's counsel, citing a disagreement on how to 

proceed with the defense. The district court denied the motion 

and urged counsel and defendant to resolve their differences. At 

trial the defense utilized was entrapment. Defendant produced no 

evidence and exercised his constitutional right not to testify 

personally. 

The government produced overwhelming direct evidence on the 

three separate sales charged from witnesses to defendant's sale of 

cocaine to an undercover agent. 

The standard of review of the refusal of a continuance and of 

a motion to withdraw as counsel is whether the district court 

abused its discretion. See United States v. Jones, 730 F.2d 593, 

596 (10th Cir. 1984). We have examined the record and are 

satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion in this case. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1072 Document: 01019961715 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 2 
On the second issue, the trial court determined that an 

upward departure was warranted in the instant case, and the court 

imposed a sentence involving three months longer incarceration 

than the sentence that would normally be applied under the 

Sentencing Guidelines. The incarceration was the maximum period 

authorized by the next higher Guidelines range. In making this 

determination the court discussed the fact that there had been 

another conviction, pursuant to this defendant's guilty plea, in 

state court on which defendant had not yet been sentenced. The 

court noted that the Guidelines did not take such a state 

conviction into consideration when determining the criminal 

history category, and found that this was the type case which 

would support an upward departure. The trial court then 

determined that, based upon the guilty plea to the state court 

charge, the applicable criminal history cateogry is 1 for a total 

offense level of 16. 

We have recently set forth the standards of review for upward 

departures in sentencing guidelines cases. See United States v. 

White, F.2d (10th Cir. 1990) (No. 89-3003, filed Jan. 11, 

1990). White describes the three-level process by which we apply 

de novo review on the basic question of departure, utilize a 

clearly erroneous standard for the factual determinations the 

court makes on the justifications for the departure, and use a 

reasonableness standard for the sentence imposed on the upward 

departure. Applying those standards to the instant case, we have 

no difficulty upholding the departure. The record establishes the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1072 Document: 01019961715 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 3 
,. 

state court conviction on defendant's guilty plea, which is one of 

the circumstances which the Sentencing Guidelines contemplate as 

justifying departure. The departure followed the procedure 

approved in White and gave a sentence within the next higher 

applicable Guidelines range. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1072 Document: 01019961715 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 4