Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07041/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Thomas Pratt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L ~ D 

United States c.ourt of Appeab 

'l"~tl, ('01"f'Uit TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GEORGE THOMAS PRATT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 2 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 91-7041 

(D.C. No. CR-90-052-01) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant George Thomas Pratt appeals his conviction and 

sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(l). 

The principal issue on appeal is whether the court erred in 

its determination, for sentencing purposes, of the amount of 

methamphetamine that could be obtained from the use of ephedrine 

* 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: 91-7041 Document: 010110243053 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 1
by the method of manufacture utilized by defendant. The 

government's witnesses testified to a one-to-one weight ratio or 

possibly lower, but in excess of the two-to-one ratio found by the 

court. Some of the government's testimony was based upon 

discussions with a chemist who did not appear before the court. 

Defendant himself testified that the most he could produce from 

four pounds eight ounces of ephedrine was twenty-three ounces of 

methamphetamine, and that the court should have based its 

determination on his testimony. 

In United States v. Havens, 910 F.2d 703, 706 (10th Cir. 

1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 687 (1991), relied upon by both 

parties, we stated 

specific defendant 

theoretical maximum 

that the court must determine "what each 

could have actually produced, not the 

amount produceable from the chemicals 

involved." While this is the test, the court in sentencing can 

rely upon evidence that would not be admissible in a direct 

criminal proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3); United States 

v. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 

112 S. Ct. 884 (1992). Based upon our review of the record we 

cannot find that the district court erred in holding that two 

pounds of ephedrine can produce one pound of methamphetamine. See 

United States v. Andersen, 940 F.2d 593, 597 n.5 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(testimony that similar manufacture method would produce eighty 

percent as much methamphetamine as L-ephedrine used). 

Additionally, defendant raises five other issues on his own 

to justify reversal. These are that there was no amount of 

chemical or precursor chemical set forth in the indictment, that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7041 Document: 010110243053 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 2
methamphetamine hydrochloride is not a scheduled controlled 

substance, that the maximum permissible punishment is five years, 

that methamphetamine hydrochloride and ephedrine hydrochloride are 

exempt from all schedules, and that methamphetamine is not on a 

list of controlled dangerous substances. We are in agreement with 

counsel and the government that these contentions are meritless. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7041 Document: 010110243053 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 3