Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02006/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Paul Gallegos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 90-2006 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DAVID PAUL GALLEGOS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the ·United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. CR 89-279-SC-3) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and James D. Tierney, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Chris Key and Macon Mccrossen, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys 

for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. 

* The parties to this appeal have indicated that oral argument 

is not desired. After examining the briefs and the appellate 

record, this three-judge panel has also determined 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. The cause is 

( therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 1 
( 

David Paul Gallegos and two co-defendants, Ken Smith and 

Albert Mirabal, were charged in the first count of a two-count 

indictment in the United States District Court for the District of 

New Mexico with conspiring from April 29, 1989, to May 18, 1989, 

to possess with an intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of 

. marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l), 841(b)(l)(B), 

846, and 18 u.s.c. § 2. In the second count, the three defendants 

were charged with the possession on May 18, 1989, of more than 100 

kilograms of marijuana with an intent to distribute, in violation· 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l), 841(b)(l)(B) and 18 u.s.c. § 2. 

As a result of a plea bargain, all three defendants pleaded 

guilty to a one-count information charging them with possession on 

May 15, 1989, of more than· 50 kilograms of marijuana with an 

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(a)(l), 

841(b)(l)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. By this appeal, Gallegos challenges the sentence imposed on him by the district court. By 

separate appeal, No. 90-2029, Ken Smith has also challenged his 

sentence. The third defendant, Albert Mirabal, has not appealed 

his sentence. 

The pre-sentence report fixed Gallegos' base offense level at 

24 (after a downward adjustment of 2 points for his acceptance of 

personal responsibility) and his criminal history category at II, 

and then stated that his "guideline imprisonment range is 63 to 78 

months." This latter statement concerning the guideline sentencing range is in error since a correct reading of the Sentencing 

Table sets Gallegos' guideline sentencing range at 57 to 71 

months. This error in the pre-sentence report was apparently not 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 2 
( caught by counsel or the court. In any event, in sentencing 

Gallegos the district judge clearly indicated that he understood 

Gallegos' guideline sentencing range to be 63 to 78 months, and 

imposed a sentence of 70 months, which he said was "in the middle 

of the guideline range." 

On appeal, government counsel and defense counsel agree that 

in imposing the 70-month sentence on Gallegos the district court 

used the wrong guideline sentencing range, i.e., 63 to 78 months, 

and that Gallegos must be resentenced under the correct guideline 

range, i.e., 57 to 71 months. We agree. 

Gallegos' second argument concerns the district court's 

determination of the applicable base offense level. In computing 

Gallegos' base offense level, the district judge factored in 189 

pounds of marijuana found in a shed located on Gallegos' premises. 

Counsel asserts that, under the guidelines, such inclusion was 

improper and that if the 189 pounds had not been factored into the 

base offense level there would have been a substantial reduction 

in Gallegos' 

order. 

* guideline sentencing range. Some background is in 

On May 18, 1989, co-defendants Mirabal and Smith were arrested as they were in the process of selling 125 pounds of 

* The base offense level for an offense involving 125 pounds of 

marijuana is 20, whereas the base offense level for an offense 

involving 314 pounds of marijuana (125 + 189) is 26. United 

States Sentencing Comm'n, Guidelines Manual§ 2D1.1. If Gallegos 

had his base offense level set at 20 and if he then had received a 

downward reduction of 2 points because of his acceptance of 

responsibility, his final base offense level would have been 18 

instead of 24. A person with a base offense level of 18 and a 

criminal history category of II has a guideline sentencing range 

of 30 to 37 months. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 3 
marijuana to undercover agents. Mirabal had been negotiating the 

sale for several weeks prior to May 18, 1989. Smith was Mirabal's 

source of supply. Shortly before the arrest, agents followed 

Smith to Gallegos' residence and observed Gallegos assist Smith in 

loading the 125 pounds of marijuana into Smith's vehicle from a 

shed located within Gallegos' curtilage. After the arrest of 

Mirabal and Smith, the agents proceeded to Gallegos' residence 

where Gallegos was arrested. Armed with a search warrant, the 

agents searched Gallegos' shed and seized an additional 189 pounds 

of marijuana. During the course of the ensuing search of the 

premises, agents also seized approximately $15,378.00 in cash, 

scales, other drug paraphernalia, and three firearms. 

In our view, the district court did not err in factoring into 

Gallegos' base offense level the 189 pounds of marijuana seized 

from his shed. United States Sentencing Comm'n, Guidelines Manual 

(hereinafter referred to as Guidelines)§ lBl.3 provides that in 

determining a base offense level all acts and omissions aided and 

abetted by the defendant, as well as all acts which were part of 

the same course of conduct, should be considered. In the Commentary to that guideline is the statement that in a drug 

distribution case, quantities and types of drugs not specified in 

the charge with which defendant stands convicted are to be 

included in determining the base offense level "if they were part 

of the same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan 

as the count of conviction." Guidelines§ lBl.3, comment. at 

1.19. Accord§ 2D1.1, comment. (n. 12) ("Types and quantities of 

drugs not specified in the count of conviction may be considered 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 4 
( 

in determining the offense level"). See also United States v. 

Preciado, No. 89-2147, slip op. (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 1990); United 

States v. Valle-Sanchez, 912 F.2d 424, 426 (10th Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Harris, 903 F.2d 770, 778~ (10th Cir. 1990); and 

United States v. Ware, 897 F.2d 1538, 1542-43 (10th Cir. 1990), 

cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2629 (1990). 

The district court was of the view that Gallegos' possession 

of the 189 pounds of marijuana found in the shed was related to 

the crime to which he had pleaded guilty, namely, possession on 

May 15, 1989, of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with an 

intent to distribute. We are not inclined to disturb this ruling. 

As of May 18, 1989, Gallegos had 314 pounds of marijuana stored in 

his shed. He and Smith loaded 125 pounds of that marijuana into 

Smith's car and Smith and Mirabal then tried to sell the 125 

pounds to undercover agents. Shortly after the aborted "sale," 

Gallegos was himself arrested and the remaining marijuana in 

Gallegos' shed, i.e., 189 pounds of marijuana, was seized. The 

possession of the 189 pounds of marijuana was part of the same 

course of conduct as the charge to which Gallegos pleaded guilty, 

i.e., possession on May 15, 1989, of more than 50 kilograms of 

marijuana with an intent to distribute. See United States v. 

Sailes, 872 F.2d 735, 737-39 (6th Cir. 1989). See also United 

States v. Trujillo, 906 F.2d 1456, 1467-68 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Sailes, 872 F.2d at 737-39); United States v. Boyd, 901 F.2d 

842, 844 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 

1561-63 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 88 (1990). The 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 5 
cash and drug trafficking items seized from Gallegos' property 

further support this finding. We find no error in this regard. 

As indicated, the 189 pounds of marijuana found in Gallegos' 

shed was factored into Gallegos' base offense level and was also 

factored into Smith's base offense level. However, the 189 pounds 

of marijuana found in Gallegos' shed was not factored into 

Mirabal's base offense level. Such, Gallegos argues, violates the 

fundamental purpose of the guidelines, which is fairness and evenness in sentencing. We do not agree. Smith and Gallegos agreed 

to the storage of marijuana in Gallegos' shed. Mirabal, so far as 

the record before us is concerned, didn't even know Gallegos, let 

alone know that Gallegos had a shed within his curtilage in which 

Smith's marijuana was stored. Mirabal's dealings were so~ely with 

Smith. Mirabal was not present when Gallegos and Smith loaded the 

125 pounds of marijuana into Smith's vehicle. The district court, 

in our view, correctly held that under Sentencing Guideline§ 

lBl.3, the 189 pounds of marijuana should not be factored into the 

determination of Mirabal's base offense level. 

Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-2006 Document: 010110014749 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 6