Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06168/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Peter Darks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

Uoited Srates Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

TYRONE PETER DARKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 18 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6168 

(D.C. No. CR-89-284-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

3 4 ( f ) ; 10th Cir. R. 3 4 . 1. 9 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

The single issue relevant in this criminal appeal is whether 

there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's 

addition of two points to defendant Tyrone Peter Darks' offense 

level under the Sentencing Guidelines for "more than minimal 

planning." Darks pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and 

* 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: 90-6168 Document: 010110076403 Date Filed: 01/18/1991 Page: 1 
two counts of opening or destroying mail not directed to him, in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 1341 and 1703, pursuant to a plea 

agreement. The court determined that Darks was in category I and 

had an offense level of 7, based on the amount of money involved, 

a finding of more than minimal planning, and Darks' acceptance of 

responsibility. u.s.s.G. §§ 2Fl.l(b)(l)(B), 2Fl.l(b) (2) (A), 

3El.l(a), and 4Al.l(c). The court sentenced him under the 

sentencing table to six months imprisonment. If the offense level 

properly calculated is only 5 and the amendments to the guidelines 

do not apply, as Darks argues, then five months is the maximum 

guidelines sentencing range and remand would be required for 

resentencing within that range. 

Under the scheme involved in this case, Darks stole mail from 

postal pick-up boxes, removed checks and money orders from the 

stolen mail, altered the payees to read Littleton Coin Company, 

and under a fictitious name mailed the checks along with order 

forms for collectors coins to that company. Darks submitted four 

different orders to Littleton accompanied by a number of the 

altered checks. 

We must review the district court's finding on the "more than 

minimal planning" issue, see u.s.s.G. §§ 2Fl.l(b) (2) (A), lBl.1, 

application note l(f) commentary, under a clearly erroneous 

standard. United States v. Sanchez, 914 F.2d 206, 207 (10th Cir. 

1990). So viewed, based upon the record before us we cannot find 

the determination to be clearly erroneous. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6168 Document: 010110076403 Date Filed: 01/18/1991 Page: 2