Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-07088/USCOURTS-ca10-07-07088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curry Adoyle Dawson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 15, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-7088

v. (E.D. Oklahoma)

CURRY ADOYLE DAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 6:07-cr-00016-RAW-5)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Curry Adoyle Dawson pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Oklahoma to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a

drug-trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The presentence report

(PSR) stated that Mr. Dawson had cocked his gun and held it to the victim’s head. 

Mr. Dawson did not object to this statement in the PSR, but at the sentencing

hearing he disputed that he had put a gun to the victim’s head. The district court

Appellate Case: 07-7088 Document: 01012450603 Date Filed: 07/15/2008 Page: 1 
1

Fed. R. Crim P. 32(i)(3) states:

Court Determinations. At sentencing, the court:

(A) may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence

report as a finding of fact;

(B) must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report

or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine

that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not

affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the

(continued...)

-2-

decided not to resolve the issue, because it would not impact its sentencing

calculation. The court sentenced Mr. Dawson to seven years’ imprisonment. On

appeal Mr. Dawson contends that (1) he was not subject to a mandatory minimum

sentence of seven years under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), which provides for

that minimum when the firearm is “brandished,” because “brandishing” is a

separate element of the offense that must be proved to a jury; and (2) the district

court should have appended to the PSR a written determination that it was not

resolving the factual dispute raised at the sentencing hearing. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Mr. Dawson concedes that his first contention is foreclosed by the Supreme

Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), so we need not

elaborate further on that issue.

As for Mr. Dawson’s second contention, he claims that under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 32(i)(3)(C) the district court should have appended to the PSR a determination

that a ruling on the factual dispute raised at the sentencing hearing was

unnecessary.1

 But he did not raise this issue below. Therefore, we review for

Appellate Case: 07-7088 Document: 01012450603 Date Filed: 07/15/2008 Page: 2 
1

(...continued)

matter in sentencing; and

(C) must append a copy of the court’s determinations under

this rule to any copy of the presentence report made available

to the Bureau of Prisons.

-3-

plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir.

2005).

“Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3)

affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Without reviewing the first two prongs, we affirm on the third. “[T]o

have affected substantial rights, the error must have been prejudicial.” United

States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1179 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Mr. Dawson has failed to show prejudice. He suggests that the Bureau

of Prisons (BOP) will use against him the statement in the PSR that he held a gun

to the victim’s head, and he states that an addendum to the PSR “would have

ensured the [BOP] would know he denied putting a gun to [the victim’s] head,

and that the district court had not found to the contrary.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 3. 

But he can provide the BOP with a copy of the sentencing transcript (or this

opinion) reciting that the district court made no finding on the matter. In fact, the

court stated: 

Well, I understand that the defendant is not in agreement with the

part of the presentence report that he says he put the gun to the

Appellate Case: 07-7088 Document: 01012450603 Date Filed: 07/15/2008 Page: 3 
-4-

head. . . . And I understand that and I want to say that on the record

so you can have that disagreement public and on the record. It

doesn’t make any difference, you understand, as far as the actual

sentence goes.

R. Vol. 3 at 7–8. Moreover, Mr. Dawson has not shown why he cannot request

the district court to resolve this matter by filing a motion under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 36 (“After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time

correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct

an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.”).

We AFFIRM the sentence and judgment of the district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-7088 Document: 01012450603 Date Filed: 07/15/2008 Page: 4