Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01188/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Cardenas-Beltran
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

FILED 

lhlited States Courr of Appeals 

Tenth q,.rnit 

SEP 7 .. 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) No. 88-1188 

) 

VICTOR MANUEL CARDENAS-BELTRAN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

(D.C. No. CR-87-420-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is a direct appeal from defendant Cardenas-Beltran's 

conviction for various narcotics-related crimes. Defendant makes 

four contentions on appeal: (1) the district court's denial of 

defendant's motions for severance constituted reversible error; 

(2) the district court's admission into evidence of hearsay 

* 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: 88-1188 Document: 01019973442 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
statements made by defendant's codefendants prejudiced defendant 

and constituted reversible error; (3) the district court erred in 

denying defendant's two motions for mistrial; and (4) the district 

court erred in failing to make written findings concerning 

disputed portions of defendant's presentence report and in failing 

to append those findings to the report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 32(c)(3)(D). 

We disagree with defendant's first three contentions. The 

i ssue of severance is committed to the district court's 

discretion, and defendant points to no specific prejudice in this 

case that would not be true in any case against alleged 

coconspirators. See United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, 

1385 (10th Cir. 1981) ("To establish abuse of discretion more is 

required than that separate trials might have offered a better 

chance for acquittal of one or more of the accused."). With 

regard to the statements of defendant's codefendants, we agree 

with the district court that the statements were made in 

furtherance of a conspiracy and hence were not hearsay under Fed. 

R. Evid. 80l(d)(2)(E}. We do not think that the district court 

abused its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 by allowing the 

statements. Last, we have examined the bases for defendant's two 

motions for mistrial and believe that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying them. 

With regard to defendant's argument that the district court 

failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c}(3)(D}, we agree that 

defendant should be resentenced. Defendant contends that the 

district court erred in failing to make written findings 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 88-1188 Document: 01019973442 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2 
concerning disputed portions of defendant's presentence report and 

in failing to append those findings to the report pursuant to Rule 

32. 1 In response, the government "concedes there was not literal 

compliance" with Rule 32 (U.S. Br. at Point IV), but contends that 

defendant did not submit "any evidence to show that the challenged 

information [in the presentence report] was substantially 

inaccurate." Id. 

Other than the district court's striking of a statement in 

the presentence report alleging that defendant was "trying to 

establish a distribution network for drugs in Tucson" (Tr. 705-

06), the district court failed to make "(i) a finding as to the 

[controverted] allegation[s], or (ii) a determination that no such 

finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be 

taken into account in sentencing." Rule 32(c)(3)(D). Nor did the 

district court append a "written record of such findings and 

determinations" to the presentence report. Id. Because we cannot 

determine from the record what findings the district court made or 

what facts the district court relied upon, the sentence must be 

vacated and the district court must resentence the defendant after 

making the required findings or determinations. United States v. 

Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474, 1483-84 (10th Cir. 1988). 

1 At his sentencing hearing, defendant specifically objected to 

various portions of the presentence report. (January 26, 1988 Tr. 

at 704 to 707.) Defendant's objections are summarized in the 

government's appellate brief. (U.S. Brief at Point IV.) 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 88-1188 Document: 01019973442 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 3 
Defendant's convictions are AFFIRMED. Defendant's sentence 

is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for 

resentencing in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

- 4 -

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1188 Document: 01019973442 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 4