Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04105/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Thomas Shipley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

- FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appaala 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 211991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WALTER THOMAS SHIPLEY, also 

known as Radar, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-4105 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-43-G) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Walter Thomas Shipley was found guilty, on a jury verdict, 

and convicted of distributing a controlled substance and carrying 

a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. § 924(c). He 

appeals the firearm conviction contending there was insufficient 

evidence to support the jury verdict. Shipley's counsel has filed 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-4105 Document: 010110132131 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 1 
an "Anders" brief, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), with 

respect to Shipley's insufficiency argument. 

The government has correctly identified the appropriate 

standard of review. Evidence is considered sufficient to support 

a criminal conviction if, viewing all the evidence, both direct 

and circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the government, 

a reasonable trier of fact could find the essential elements of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. McKinnell, 

888 F.2d 669, 673 (10th Cir. 1990): United States v. Culpepper, 

834 F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 1987), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). 

There is no dispute that the following evidence was presented 

to the jury. Detective Carroll Mays, an undercover narcotics 

officer, went to Shipley's motel room to see if Shipley would sell 

him cocaine. When Shipley opened the door Detective Mays observed 

that Shipley had his hands behind his back. An individual who was 

accompanying Detective Mays engaged Shipley in a conversation 

regarding the purchase of cocaine, following which Shipley moved 

to some scales which were in the motel room. At that point 

Detective Mays saw Shipley bring a hand from his back and place 

something silver in color in his lap. 

Shipley weighed out a portion of cocaine using the scales. 

During that process he reached into his lap, took what Detective 

Mays recognized as a silver Raven 25 caliber semi-automatic pistol 

out of his lap and placed the firearm beside the scales he was 

using the weigh out the drugs. Detective Mays was only five to 

six feet away from Shipley when this happened. Mays observed that 

the pistol had a silver clip in place. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4105 Document: 010110132131 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 2 
After Shipley finished with the first customer, he turned to 

Detective Mays and asked him what he wanted. Detective Mays then 

negotiated the purchase of one-half of a sixteenth ounce of 

cocaine. The physical arrangements at the point of sale, 

including the presence of the weapon, did not change during the 

transaction involving Detective Mays. 

18 u.s.c. § 924(c)(l) provides in part that "whoever, during 

and in relation to any ... drug trafficking crime .•• for 

which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses 

or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment 

provided for such ... drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to 

imprisonment for five years •... " The "use" element of an 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) violation is satisfied when the evidence proves 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "has 'ready access' 

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

criminal undertaking and its availability increased the likelihood 

that the criminal undertaking would succeed." United States v. 

Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting United 

States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d at 675, (10th Cir. 1989)). Ready 

access is proven when the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the "firearm was available to the defendant in the 

vicinity where the drug trafficking offense took place." Id. The 

government must at that point, prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that a nexus existed between the firearm and the drug trafficking 

offense. The jury found in favor of the government on this point, 

and the evidence clearly supports that conclusion. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4105 Document: 010110132131 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 3 
We reject Shipley's argument that the testimony of Detective 

Mays, standing alone, is insufficient to convict, that it was 

necessary for Shipley to actually handle or otherwise make use of 

the gun at the time of the sale of cocaine to Detective Mays or 

that the mere presence of a gun at the scene and in the proximity 

of the scales is insufficient to show that he was "using" a weapon 

in a drug trafficking offense. The jury found otherwise, and the 

evidence supports its finding. 

For the reasons stated above, the conviction of Walter Thomas 

Shipley is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4105 Document: 010110132131 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 4