Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03154/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas R. Shanley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

F 1 L£D 

Unittd Scares Court of Ap · -;,.cuit 

APR 10 19 

,~OB.El.'\ j L. HOE_ .. .,_ .. 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-3154 

THOMAS R. SHANLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-40006-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before*~OORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK, District 

Judge. 

Defendant-appellant Thomas R. Shanley (Shanley) was convicted 

by the district court, sitting without a jury, of possessing 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l), 

and possessing a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l). Shanley now appeals on four grounds. Our 

jurisdiction to review this judgment arises under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We affirm. 

* 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 Lewis T. Babcock, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3154 Document: 01019970885 Date Filed: 04/10/1990 Page: 1 
I . 

Shanley's first contention is that 1) he did not voluntarily 

consent to the search of his vehicle and 2) the search of his 

automobile exceeded the scope of his consent. While a consent 

search is constitutionally permissible if not a product of duress 

or coercion, see Schneckloth v. Bustamente, 412 U.S. 218, 223-27 

(1973), the scope of a consent search is limited to the specific 

authorization given, Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 656-57 

(1980). The district court found that police placed no undue 

duress upon Shanley and that the search of containers found within 

Shanley's car fell within the parameters of his consent. Our 

review of the record convinces us that the district court was not 

clearly erroneous in making these factual determinations. See 

United States v. Corral, 823 F.2d 1389, 1393 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Even without Shanley's consent, however, evidence obtained 

from his automobile was admissible, having resulted from a search 

incident to a lawful arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 

454, 459-61 (1980) (police may search passenger compartment of 

automobile and examine contents of any containers found therein 

when search is incident to lawful arrest); United States v. 

Johnson, 734 F.2d 503, 504-05 (10th Cir. 1984). Police searched 

Shanley's car after he had been arrested for driving without 

insurance, a valid ground for arrest under Kansas law, see Kan. 

Stat. Ann. §§ 22-240l(c)(2), 40-3104(e) (1988 & Supp. 1989). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3154 Document: 01019970885 Date Filed: 04/10/1990 Page: 2 
Therefore, Shanley's motion to suppress properly was denied by the 

district court. 

II. 

Shanley's next contention is that the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain his conviction for possessing 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. At the time of 

Shanley's arrest, police found on his person and in his car 50.09 

grams of methamphetamine, $10,720 in cash, two handguns, plastic 

bags, razor blades, a scale, an inhaler and a tiny spoon. This 

evidence clearly supports the district court's finding that 

Shanley intended to distribute methamphetamine. See United States 

v. Mabry, 809 F.2d 671, 685-86 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 

874 (1987). Viewing this evidence as we must in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, we hold that a rational trier of 

fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Shanley 

intended to distribute methamphetamine. See Jackson v. Virginia, 

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

III. 

Shanley's also contends that the lesser included offense of 

simple possession, 21 U.S.C. § 844, obviates count II of the 

indictment charging possession of a firearm in relation to a drug 

transaction because count II specified possession with intent to 

distribute as the underlying offense. Because we hold that there 

was ample evidence that Shanley possessed methamphetamine with 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3154 Document: 01019970885 Date Filed: 04/10/1990 Page: 3 
intent to distribute, we decline to hypothesize as to whether a 

conviction for simple possession would have obviated count II. 

IV. 

Finally, Shanley contends that he 1) did not violate Kansas 

law by having a firearm in his vehicle, and 2) did not use or 

carry a firearm; therefore he did not possess a firearm in 

relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l). 

Culpability under§ 924(c)(l) is contingent upon a violation of 

federal, not state law. Therefore, the legality of transporting a 

firearm in an automobile under Kansas law is irrelevant to the 

present inquiry. Shanley's argument that he did not carry or use 

a firearm under§ 924(c)(l) also is without merit. Shanley 

possessed two pistols in a briefcase behind the driver's seat of 

his car, a sufficient nexus to establish culpability under 

§ 924(c)(l). See United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 674-75 

(citing cases interpreting§ 924(c)(l)). His conviction for using 

a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime therefore must 

stand. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-3154 Document: 01019970885 Date Filed: 04/10/1990 Page: 4