Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07091/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Neese
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

~ 1 

... Lb . 

·u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Sta.tr~ Court or App::;ah 

Te1:th (°'?--::ui~ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

TIMOTHY NEESE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY 2 G i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 91-7091 

(D.C. No. CR-91-02-03) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

Before TACHA, SNEED,** and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Timothy Neese appeals the district court's 

sentencing determination after he was convicted of one count of 

distributing methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to 

distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, Neese contends that he 

should not be held accountable, under the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.), for a quantity of drugs a codefendant 

negotiated for a future delivery with an undercover officer. He 

also asserts that the district court erred when it enhanced his 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Joseph T . Sneed, Circuit Judge for the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-7091 Document: 010110254290 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 1
:... 

sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines for firearms possession. 

We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. § 1291 and affirm. 

Neese contends that the district court improperly determined 

that he was accountable for an amount of methamphetamine for which 

a coconspirator negotiated delivery. Additionally, Neese argues 

that the negotiation of a four ounce delivery by a codefendant of 

methamphetamine to the undercover officer constituted a separate 

conspiracy. To resolve these issues, we must determine whether 

Neese could have reasonably foreseen that this particular drug 

transaction would occur and whether it occurred within the scope 

of the conspiracy. United States~ Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1462 

(10th Cir. 1990) ("a defendant is accountable for drug quantities 

associated with a conspiracy provided that such quantities were 

within the scope of, and reasonably foreseeable in connection 

with, the criminal activity he jointly agreed to undertake with 

his co-conspirators"), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 990 (1991); see 

also U.S.S.G. § 1Bl.3(a)(2) ("conduct for which the defendant 

would be otherwise accountable also includes conduct of others in 

furtherance of the execution of the jointly undertaken criminal 

activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant"). The 

district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

Neese was accountable for a negotiated sale of four ounces of 

methamphetamine by codefendant Franks. We agree. 

The district court must determine that the government proved 

the issue of reasonable foreseeability by a preponderance of the 

evidence . Reid, 911 F.2d at 1462. We review the district court's 

"determination that co-defe ndant conduc t in furtherance of a joint 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7091 Document: 010110254290 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 2
criminal venture was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant" for 

clear error. United States Y...:.. Bianco, 922 F.2d 910, 913 (1st Cir. 

1991). After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that 

there was no clear error. The record reveals that Neese delivered 

methamphetamine as part of the conspiracy. Agent Martson 

personally observed Neese act in this role on two separate 

occasions. Agent Martson also met Neese as he was leaving 

codefendant Franks' residence when he set up the purchase of the 

four ounces of methamphetamine. Most importantly, when the search 

warrant was served, Neese was found in Franks' residence. This 

evidence and other evidence in the record provides ample support 

for the district court's conclusion that the drug quantities 

associated with the conspiracy "were within the scope of, and 

reasonably foreseeable in connection with, the criminal activity 

he [Neese] jointly agreed to undertake with his co-conspirators." 

Reid, 911 F.2d at 1462. 

Neese also argues that the district court erred in enhancing 

his sentence for possession of firearms. u.s.s.G. § 2D1.l(b)(l) 

provides that "[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was 

possessed, increase by 2 levels." Application note 3 specifies 

that this "adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, 

unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with 

the offense." Under§ 1Bl.3(a)(l), a court must consider "all 

acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the 

defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise 

accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense." 

Further, the application note specifies that "the conduct for 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7091 Document: 010110254290 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 3
which the defendant 'would be otherwise accountable' also includes 

conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointlyundertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by 

the defendant." Id. comment (n.1). In United States Y.!.. 

McFarlane, 933 F.2d 898, 899 (10th Cir. 1991), we held that the 

reasonable foreseeability of a weapons possession by a codefendant 

may be inferred if the codefendant knowingly possessed the weapon. 

See also United States Y.!.. Underwood, 938 F.2d 1086, 1090 (10th 

Cir. 1991). We review the district court's determination of 

foreseeability under the clearly erroneous standard. United 

States Y.!.. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1990). 

The record reveals that when officers entered codefendant 

Franks' residence, Neese was present and in possession of 

nicotinamide, a substance used to "cut" methamphetamine. As the 

officers entered, Franks ran toward the bedroom where an unloaded 

shotgun with an obliterated serial number was lying in plain view 

on the bed. Franks had $6,000 and 2.8 grams of methamphetamine on 

his person. A drug-detecting canine indicated that the money had 

been in close proximity to a controlled substance. The open 

location of the shotgun and the presence of drugs and drug money 

lead us to conclude that the district court properly found that 

the firearm was used in furtherance of the conspiracy. Given this 

evidence and additional evidence in the record, we cannot conclude 

that the district court's determination was clearly erroneous. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7091 Document: 010110254290 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 4