Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02727/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02727-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert T. Best
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirenit. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 91988 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT T. BEST, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 86-2727 

) (D.C. No. 82-CR-87-C) 

) (N.D . Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Robert Best (defendant) 

challenges his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute and to distribute cocaine and marijuana , in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 831 and 846. Defendant was convicted after a jury 

trial and directly appealed to the Tenth Circuit, along with his 

Appellate Case: 86-2727 Document: 010110028294 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 1 
J • 

~ 

' • 

coconspirators, in United States v. Dickey, 736 F.2d 571 (10th 

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1188 (1985). 

In his§ 2255 motion, defendant raised three related grounds. 

First, defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective because 

he "failed to contest the duplicity of the indictment, thereby 

prejudicing [defendant] in that the jury returned a general 

verdict of guilty without being aware that they were finding the 

[defendant] guilty of two separate offenses." Second, defendant 

contended that ''since the indictment alleged two separate offenses 

within one count, the court on its own motion should have 

instructed the jury to return a special verdict." Finally, 

defendant argued that his sentence was improper because conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute marijuana carries a maximum 

sentence of five years. 

Defendant's arguments notwithstanding, this court agrees with 

the district court that these issues were settled by our decision 

in Dickey. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons 

stated by the district court. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2727 Document: 010110028294 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 2