Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03257/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith L. McFarlane
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Co~rt ~f Appeals 

Tenth Ctraut 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 211991 

TENTH CIRCUIT &OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3257 

KEITH L. MCFARLANE I 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 90-20012-3) 

Submitted on the Briefs. 

James F. Foster of Kansas City, Kansas, for the DefendantAppellant. 

Lee Thompson, United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, 

and Robert s. Streepy, Assistant United States Attorney, for the 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before ARDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY 1 Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-3257 Document: 01019292975 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant-appellant Keith McFarlane appeals a sentence of 121 

months' imprisonment and four years' supervised release imposed 

after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 841(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. § 2. 

On appeal, McFarlane argues the district court erred by enhancing 

his base level offense under the Sentencing Guidelines for his 

codefendant's possession of a firearm during commission of the 

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

affirm. 1 

After receiving a tip about a crack cocaine dealer named 

"Tumbleweed" (Lawrence Franklin), the Kansas Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) arranged surveillance of a purchase from 

Franklin at a car wash in Kansas City, Kansas. A car with three 

men inside arrived at the car wash, drove around the area slowly, 

and left at a high rate of speed. When a police officer stopped 

the vehicle, a person jumped out of the back seat and ran. Just 

prior to being caught, he threw an item into a tree. The person 

who attempted to escape arrest was identified as Keith McFarlane. 

The item recovered from the tree was a small bag containing 223 

grams of crack cocaine. 

The other two individuals were arrested and identified as 

Franklin and Anthony Green. Green told special agents he was 

accompanying Franklin on a drug deal and he knew there was a 

handgun on the floor of the automobile between the front seats. 

1 After exam~n~ng 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3257 Document: 01019292975 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 2 
He further stated McFarlane sat in the back seat and held the 

cocaine. 

McFarlane contends his sentence should not be enhanced by his 

codefendants' possession of a firearm during the offense. Section 

2Dl.l(b)(l) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides: "If a 

dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed during 

commission of the offense, increase [the base level offense] by 2 

levels." U.S.S.G. S 2Dl.l(b)(l). Section 1Bl.3(a)(l) directs 

courts applying a specific offense characteristic such as 

2Dl.l(b)(l) to consider "all acts and omissions committed or aided 

and abetted by the defendant . that occurred during the 

commission of the offense." Id. S 1B1.3(a)(l). The application 

note to section 1B1.3 explains the conduct for which the defendant 

would be accountable, including "conduct of others in furtherance 

of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that 

was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant" regardless whether a 

conspiracy is charged. Id. comment (n.l). Together these 

provisions permit sentencing courts to attribute to a defendant 

weapons possessed by his codefendants if the possession of weapons 

was known to the defendant or reasonably foreseeable by him. See 

United States ~ Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 

1990); cf. United States~ St. Julian, 922 F.2d 563, 572 (lOth 

Cir. 1991) (base level offense increased two points under same 

theory for offense of entering or managing a drug establishment). 

The court in Aguilera-Zapata explained that a sentencing 

court may infer a defendant should have foreseen a codefendant's 

possession of a dangerous weapon when "the government demonstrates 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3257 Document: 01019292975 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 3 
that another participant knowingly possessed the weapon while 

[they] committed the offense." 901 F.2d at 1215...!.. The district 

court's finding concerning foreseeability is a factual finding 

reviewable under a clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 1216. 

Here, Green stated he had participated in the transaction as 

a show of force, he knew the gun was available in the front seat 

of the automobile, and he knew a drug deal was taking place. The 

district court found "it could be reasonably inferred from all the 

facts and circumstances in this case that the defendant 

[McFarlane] was aware of the possession of the firearm by [his] 

codefendant .•. "and it was "foreseeable to this defendant that 

a firearm was likely present to protect this whole transaction so 

that it could be accomplished." After reviewing the record, we 

are convinced the district court's finding is not clearly 

erroneous. Therefore, we hold the enhancement was proper. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3257 Document: 01019292975 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 4