Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08034/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brad Parkinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Cnurt of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT J ur 1 . 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

BRAD PARKINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

C!erk 

No. 90-8034 

(D.C. No. 89-106-2B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Brad Parkinson was convicted by a jury on 

one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, a 

schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(1988) and one count of using and carrying a firearm during a drug 

trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On 

appeal, Parkinson asserts that the government failed to present 

sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on either 

count. 1 In considering these claims, we "view the proof presented 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 The parties have requested that this case may be submitted 

for decision on the briefs. After examining the briefs and 

appellate record, we agree that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 90-8034 Document: 010110119440 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 1 
,, • I 

in the light most favorable to the government to ascertain if 

there is sufficient substantial proof, direct and circumstantial, 

together with reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, from 

which a jury might find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt." United States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1431 (10th Cir. 

1990) . Applying this standard, we conclude that the record 

contains sufficient evidence to sustain Parkinson's convictions on 

both counts. 

In order to convict Parkinson on the conspiracy charge, the 

government was required to prove that "[l] two or more persons 

agreed to violate the law, [2] that the defendant knew at least 

the essential objectives of the conspiracy, and [3] that he 

knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy." United 

States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1402 (10th Cir. 1990). The 

government alleges, and Parkinson does not dispute, that the 

government met the first requirement by proving the existence of a 

conspiracy between Ron Gillis and Marvin Aeschbacher to distribute 

methamphetamine in the vicinity of Gillette, Wyoming. The 

government also presented evidence that Parkinson purchased 

methamphetamine from Aeschbacher in Gillette, that he sold and 

otherwise distributed at least a portion of the drugs he purchased 

from Aeschbacher to other methamphetamine users in town, that he 

helped Aeschbacher cut the drug with another substance, Inositol, 

on at least one occasion and watched him cut it on others and that 

cutting methamphetamine in this manner was a routine part of 

assist 

Fed. R. 

ordered 

the determination of 

App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

this appeal. See 

The case is therefore 

Appellate Case: 90-8034 Document: 010110119440 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 2 
Aeschbacher's distribution process. The jury also heard three 

police officers testify that Parkinson told them after his arrest 

that he knowingly and voluntarily accompanied Aeschbacher on a 

March 21, 1988 trip to retrieve, among other things, two ounces of 

methamphetamine from coconspirator Gillis and that he purchased 

Inositol during that trip at Aeschbacher's request knowing that it 

would be used to cut the drug. Finally, the jury heard testimony 

that Parkinson was at Aeschbacher's side later that day when 

Aeschbacher sold the two ounces of methamphetamine to a police 

informant. A rational jury could reasonably infer from this 

evidence that Parkinson was aware of the conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine in Gillette and that he knowingly became a part of 

it. That is sufficient to sustain Parkinson's conviction on the 

conspiracy count. Sullivan, 919 F.2d at 1429. 

In order to convict Parkinson of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) 

by using and carrying a firearm during or in relation to a drug 

trafficking crime, the government was required to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt either that Parkinson had "'ready access' to the 

firearm" and that "the firearm 'was an integral part of his 

criminal undertaking and its availability increased the likelihood 

that the criminal undertaking would succeed,'" Williams, 

923 F.2d at 1402-03, or that one of Parkinson's coconspirators 

committed this crime during and in the furtherance of the 

conspiracy and that this act was a reasonably foreseeable 

consequence of 

328 U.S. 640, 

the 

647-48 

conspiracy. 

( 1946) . To 

Pinkerton v. 

meet this 

United States, 

standard, the 

government presented evidence that coconspirator Aeschbacher owned 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-8034 Document: 010110119440 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 3 
one pistol that he kept at his residence in Gillette2 and another 

pistol and a shotgun that he kept at coconspirator Gillis' 

residence in Glenrock, Wyoming. The government also presented 

evidence that drug transactions and related activities in 

furtherance of the conspiracy occurred at both locations and that 

firearms are routinely used by drug dealers for self-protection 

and enforcement. Several witnesses, including Parkinson, also 

testified that Parkinson assisted Aeschbacher in retrieving the 

shotgun from Glenrock and delivering it to the police informant in 

Gillette during the March 21, 1988 drug transaction. Under this 

circuit's broad reading of section 924(c), we find this evidence 

and the reasonable inferences therefrom to be sufficient to 

sustain the jury's conviction of Parkinson on the firearms charge. 

See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 919 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 

1990)(section 924(c) conviction sustained when jury could have 

concluded that firearm located in closet of room where drug 

transactions occurred "'emboldened' [the defendant), providing him 

with protection for himself, [the illegal drugs) and the cash if 

the need arose"). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

2 This firearm was apparently mounted 

which Aeschbacher conducted drug related 

on the wall of a room 

activities. 

4 

in 

Appellate Case: 90-8034 Document: 010110119440 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 4