Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06413/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06413-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Burton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

U nitM Statee Court of Appeab 'fer.th Circui~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 03 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Appellee, 

v. 

PHILLIP BURTON, also known as 

Bennie Phillip Burton, 

Defendant/Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6413 

(D.C. No . 90-151-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

Defendant-appellant, Bennie Phillip Burton, pled guilty to a 

one-count superseding information for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute 4. 9 kilograms of cocaine, a Schedule II 

controlled substance, in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a) (1) and§ 

846. Burton appeals his one hundred and fifty one (151) month 

sentence pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3742(a) (2), arguing that: (1) the 

district court erred in finding the total amount of cocaine 

* 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 estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United states District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 1 
involved was over fifteen (15) kilograms; (2) the district court 

erred in not granting him a two-point reduction in his base offense 

level for acceptance of responsibility; and (3) the district court 

erred in not granting him a downward departure based on diminished 

capacity. We affirm. 

I. 

Burton pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute. 21 u.s.c. § 841(a) (1), § 846. The superseding 

information specifically named Lee Kettner as a co-conspirator. 

Burton argues on appeal that the 3.85 kilograms of cocaine 

attributable to Kettner should not have been included in the 

calculation of Burton's base offense level. Burton also argues 

that the quantity of drugs used to calculate his base offense level 

was not proved by a preponderance of the evidence. 

For sentencing purposes, the district court's findings about 

the quantity of drugs implicated by the crime are factual findings 

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

Coleman, 947 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 

(U.S. Jan. 9, 1992) · (No. 91-6946); United States v. Padilla, 947 

F.2d 893, 896 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 

1476, 1483 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Trujillo, 906 F.2d 

1456, 1460 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ , 111 S.Ct. 

396 (1990). 

In order to impose a sentence based on a quantity of drugs, 

the district court's factual findings must be based on a 

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Molina-Cuartas, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 2 
952 F.2d 345, __ ; No. 90-2292 slip op., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 

29582, 1991 WL 269830 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 1991); United States v. 

Ross, 920 F.2d 1530, 1538 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court's 

findings of the quantity of drugs must be upheld where there is 

factual support in the record and the appellate court is not "left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made . 11 

Molina-Cuartas, 952 F.2d at __ ; No. 90-2292, slip op . at 9-10, 

1991 U.S. App. LEXIS at *12, 1991 WL at *4; United States v. 

Donaldson, 915 F.2d 612, 614 (10th Cir. 1990). In general, a trial 

court may use estimates based on information with a minimum indicia 

of reliability in calculating drug quantities for sentencing 

purposes. Coleman, 947 F.2d at 1428. 

In determining the base offense level for a drug offense under 

the Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing court may consider "the 

total quantity of drugs that were part of the same course of 

conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count of 

conviction." Coleman, 947 F.2d at 1427, quoting Poole, 929 F.2d 

at 1483. Quantities of drugs involved in a crime but not contained 

in the count of conviction may also be considered in determining 

the base offense level. United States Sentencing Commission, 

Guidelines Manual, § 2Dl.1 comment. (n.12) (Nov. 1989); United 

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

__ U.S. __ , 110 s.ct. 2629 (1990). A member of the ongoing 

conspiracy is subject to a sentence calculated on a base offense 

level determined not by the quantity of drugs he personally 

handled, but by the actual quantity of drugs involved in the 

conspiracy provided he knew or should have known that at least such 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 3 
amount was involved. United States v. Williams, 

1041 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ , 

(1990). 

897 F.2d 1034, 

111 S . Ct . 2 0 6 4 

At the sentencing hearing on December 7, 1991, the United 

States presented evidence as to Burton's association with Kettner 

and the quantity of cocaine attributable to Burton. Testimony at 

the sentencing hearing indicated that Bob Ford, Sr. and Connie Ford 

had been distributing cocaine to several individuals, including 

Kettner and Burton. The evidence indicated that Burton and Kettner 

were both involved in distributing cocaine in the Wichita, Kansas 

area. Burton admitted to trading cocaine back and forth with 

Kettner. Burton had received cocaine from Kettner in the past, but 

in more recent years Burton received cocaine from the Fords and 

distributed it to Kettner, who then sold it to his customers. 

Because Kettner began having financial problems, Burton became 

financially responsible to the Fords for some of Kettner's drug 

debts. Burton and Kettner were arrested together while attempting 

to acquire twenty (20) ounces of cocaine. Burton pled guilty to a 

conspiracy charge that specifically involved Kettner. 

Connie Ford testified at the sentencing hearing regarding the 

written records she kept of the quantities of cocaine received by 

Burton. Her records indicated that 11. 6 kilograms had been 

distributed to Burton. She testified as to how she acquired and 

maintained the information in her records and what her codes meant. 

Although there was other evidence that conflicted with Connie 

Ford's records, the district court found her to be a "very credible 

witness" and had "no reason at all to doubt her testimony." 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 4 
(Transcript of sentencing hearing p. 112). The district court 

found that Connie Ford kept precise and contemporaneous records and 

that "her memory was very good in regard to the transactions. " 

(Transcript of sentencing hearing p. 112). 

After considering the evidence, the district court ruled on 

Burton's objections to the presentence report. The district court 

determined that there was sufficient evidence to show that the 

total amount of cocaine for which Burton could be held responsible 

for the purpose of determining his base offense level exceeded 

fifteen (15) kilograms. The district court included both the 3.85 

kilograms of cocaine distributed to Kettner and the 11.6 kilograms 

of cocaine that were reflected in Connie Ford's records. 

We find that the evidence was sufficiently reliable for the 

district court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

amount of cocaine attributable to Burton for purposes of 

determining his base offense level exceeded fifteen (15) kilograms. 

There is sufficient factual support in the record for the district 

court's finding that the 3.85 kilograms of cocaine attributable to 

Kettner could be included in the calculation of Burton's base 

offense level. After having the opportunity to assess firsthand 

Connie Ford's demeanor on cross-examination by defense counsel, the 

district court specifically found her "very credible." Due 

deference must be given to the district court's assessment of 

credibility of the witnesses unless clearly erroneous. United 

States v. Whitehead, 912 F.2d 448, 451 (10th Cir. 1990). Because 

the record contains sufficient factual support for the district 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 5 
court I s finding of the quantity of drugs, the district court's 

finding was not clearly erroneous. 

II. 

Al though Burton pled guilty to a conspiracy charge that 

specifically alleged the amount of 4.9 kilograms of cocaine, the 

presentence report reflected that he only admitted to conspiring to 

distribute three ( 3) kilograms of cocaine. The district court 

concluded that "acceptance of responsibility takes a higher degree 

of cooperation and admission than has been forthcoming from the 

Defendant," and declined to grant Burton a two-point reduction in 

his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. 

The United States Sentencing Guidelines provide for a twopoint reduction in offense level 11 [I] f the defendant clearly 

demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal 

responsibility for his criminal conduct." u.s.S.G. § 3El.1 (Nov. 

1989). The defendant bears the burden of proving his entitlement 

to this reduction by a preponderance of the evidence. United 

states v. Ruth, 946 F.2d 110, 113 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. 

filed, (U.S. Nov. 8, 1991) (No. 91-6381); United States v. OchoaFabian, 935 F.2d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 

(U.S. Nov. 7, 1991) (No. 91-6905); Whitehead, 912 F.2d at 450; 

United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 712 (10th Cir. 1990); 

United States v . Wach, 907 F.2d 1038, 1040 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The Sentencing Guidelines Commission has recognized that the 

sentencing court is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's 

acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3El.1 comment. (n.5). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 6 
For this reason, the determination of the sentencing court is 

entitled to great deference on review and should not be disturbed 

unless it is without foundation. U.S.S.G. § 3El.1 comment. (n.5). 

We review the acceptance of responsibility determination as a 

question of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. United 

States v. Dennison, 937 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

112 s.ct. 886 (1992); Ochoa-Fabian, 935 F.2d at 1142; Ross, 920 

F.2d at 1537; Spedalieri, 910 F.2d at 712. Combining the 

defendant's burden of proof with the clearly erroneous standard of 

review, the judgment of the sentencing court will nearly always be 

sustained. Ochoa-Fabian, 935 F.2d at 1142; Whitehead, 912 F.2d at 

451; Trujillo, 906 F.2d at 1460. 

Here, although Burton pled guilty to conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 4. 9 kilograms of cocaine, he did not 

acknowledge personal responsibility for any more than three (3) 

kilograms of cocaine. Burton equates admission of the offense with 

acceptance of responsibility, but the two are not the same. 

Spedalieri, 910 F.2d at 712. Burton's refusal to admit involvement 

with any more than three (3) kilograms of cocaine does not 

demonstrate sincere contrition or evidence affirmative acceptance 

of responsibility for his criminal conduct. We cannot say that the 

district court was clearly erroneous in declining to reduce 

Burton's base offense level for acceptance of responsibility, 

particularly in light of Burton's burden of proof on this issue. 

Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of a two-point 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 7 
III. 

Burton conceded at oral argument that the discretionary 

failure to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines is not 

subject to appellate review under 18 u.s.c. § 3742. See United 

States v. Munoz, 946 F.2d 729, 730-31 (10th Cir. 1991); United 

States v. Soto, 918 F.2d 882, 883 (10th Cir. 1990); United States 

v . Richards on, 901 F.2d 867, 870 (10th Cir. 1990); United States 

v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1528-30 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, __ 

u.s. __ , 111 s.ct. 155 (1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

- 8 -

Entered for the Court 

Daniel B. Sparr 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6413 Document: 010110239122 Date Filed: 04/03/1992 Page: 8