Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08046/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Jacks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ~PRO 7 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

RON JACKS, a/k/a Ron Jackson, 

a/k/a Ron Johnson, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-8046 

(D.C. No. 91-CR-28-0lB) 

(D. Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and COOK, District Judge.** 

Ron Jacks raises two issues on appeal. He first contends the 

sentencing guideline applied in marijuana offenses involving more 

than fifty plants which deems the weight of a marijuana plant to 

be a kilogram for the purpose of mandatory sentencing violates due 

*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 o f the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**The Honorable H. Dale Cook, United States Senior District Court 

Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-8046 Document: 010110240397 Date Filed: 04/07/1992 Page: 1
process. That issue has already been resolved contrary to his 

position. United States v. Lee, __ F.2d __ , 1992 WL 30105 (10th 

Cir. 1992). On this issue, then, we must conclude Mr. Jacks' 

appeal is without merit. 

Mr. Jacks next contends the trial court violated his right to 

due process by applying a two-level enhancement to his sentence 

for impeding justice. u.s.s.G. § 3Cl.1. Defendant's argument is 

less than clear, but he asserts that this sentence held him 

"accountable for conduct on the part of one of his three codefendants." 

The government argues that Mr. Jacks did not present this 

argument to the district court. We have examined the record at 

the places cited by the prosecution and find it equivocal. It is 

difficult to follow exactly what counsel contends, but it appears 

the argument advanced on appeal is contained within the statements 

made by counsel to the district court. 

Mr. Jacks was indicted with three other persons for operating 

a marijuana growing operation out of several Wyoming houses. He 

was given the two point enhancement because while in jail, 

subsequent to his arrest, he conspired with one other defendant to 

remove incriminating evidence from a house not discovered by law 

enforcement officers in their initial investigation. 1 It now 

appears Mr. Jacks believes he is being punished for the acts of 

1The codefendant, Belinda Roberts, admitted to a probation 

that she had "panicked and arranged for someone to go in 

down the marijuana plants at the Meadowlark address." 

States v. Roberts, 91-8044, Presentence Report, R. v, page 

-2-

officer 

and cut 

United 

8. 

Appellate Case: 91-8046 Document: 010110240397 Date Filed: 04/07/1992 Page: 2
the other defendant in which he did not directly participate. In 

response to that contention, the trial court ruled: 

With respect to the objection on the ground of 

obstruction of justice, I think that Mr. Jacks is 

charged with the relevant conduct of Miss Roberts in the 

attempt to destroy the evidence at the Meadowlark house, 

even though it was after the fact, and I think that it 

was relevant conduct. which ... the Sentencing 

Guidelines makes ... applicable to Mr. Jacks. 

The evidence linking Mr. Jacks to the effort to destroy evidence 

was contained in a letter Mr. Jacks wrote to Ms. Roberts and 

another codefendant which was intercepted by jail officers. In 

that letter, Mr. Jacks stated his perplexity over the conduct of 

the fourth defendant, Mr. Shakes, who took officers to the 

Meadowlark house. Mr. Jacks asserted he could not understand why 

Mr. Shokes behaved as he did "(e]specially when he knew we were 

trying to clean it up." 

We review an upward enhancement for obstruction of justice 

under a clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Hershberger, 

_ F.2d _, 1992 WL 21805 (10th Cir. 1992). Because § 3Cl. 1 

predicates enhancement upon a willful conduct, to impose an 

enhancement for obstruction the sentencing court must find the 

defendant acted consciously with the purpose of obstructing 

justice. United States v. Gardiner, 931 F.2d 33, 35 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

We believe the statement contained in Mr. Jacks' letter that 

"we were trying to clean it up" coupled with Ms. Roberts' 

admission are a sufficient factual predicate for the trial court's 

finding that Mr. Jacks acted consciously with the purpose of 

obstructing justice. The finding, thus, was not clearly 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-8046 Document: 010110240397 Date Filed: 04/07/1992 Page: 3
erroneous. Moreover, that Mr. Jacks did not himself commit the 

acts of obstruction is 

§ lBl. 3 (a) ( 1) . 

AFFIRMED. 

not of significance. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

u.s.s.G. 

Appellate Case: 91-8046 Document: 010110240397 Date Filed: 04/07/1992 Page: 4