Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03133/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Leroy Coslet
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

United States Co~rt C?f Appeal! Tenth C1rcu1t 

PUBLISH 

MARO 3 1993 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

CHARLES LEROY COSLET, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 92-3133 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 91-40036-01) 

Submitted on the Briefs:* 

Patrick Beeman, Gladstone, Missouri, and Roy w. Brown, Kearney, Missouri, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Lee Thompson, United States Attorney, and Gregory G. Hough, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, District 

Judge.t 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

* The parties have waived oral argument. After examining the 

briefs and the 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 therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

t The Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Jr., United States 

District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 1 
Defendant-appellant Charles Leroy Coslet appeals his 

conviction on one count each of possession with intent to 

distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a ) (1), and use of a fireann 

in connection with a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c) (1). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we 

affinn. 

Background 

Aerial surveillance by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation on 

August 29, 1991 indicated a hillside marijuana cultivation 

operation. After further investigation, a warrant was obtained to 

search the suspected marijuana field. On September 4, the KBI 

searched the land, where agents discovered an elaborate and 

sophisticated operation, with running water, irrigation, 

fertilizing chemicals and tools, insecticide, camouflage from 

airborne surveillance, a makeshift shower, and a camp in which one 

maintaining the field could remain for extended periods of time. 

While the search was in progress, Mr. Coslet drove onto the 

land and occupied the camp. Unaware of the presence of law 

enforcement officers, he inspected some of the marijuana plants, 

carried pruning equipment, and gave every indication of being 

familia r with the camp and its crop. After arresting Mr. Coslet, 

agents found fertilizer, a small amount of marijuana, and a knife 

on Mr. Coslet's person and in his car. A loaded shotgun was 

f ound, in its case, in Mr. Coslet's car. Although the land was 

owne d by a Richard Gross, Mr. Coslet admitted having the same 

Kansas City address as Mr. Gross. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 2 
Mr. Coslet claimed that he was on the property hoping to 

observe a deer, and was unaware of the marijuana cultivation 

operation until discovering the plants as he walked along the 

property that morning. A jury convicted Mr. Coslet of possession 

with intent to distribute marijuana and the weapons charge. The 

court sentenced Mr. Coslet to 63 months for the marijuana charge 

under 21 U.S.C. § 84l(b) (1) (B) (vii), which mandates a five year 

minimum mandatory sentence for drug trafficking offenses involving 

more than 100 marijuana plants, and 60 months on the gun charge. 

See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.l(c) (9), 2K2.4(a). Mr. Coslet appeals on the 

following grounds: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) failure to 

identify at least 100 plants as marijuana plants, and (3) failure 

to submit appropriate jury instructions. 

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

In evaluating a sufficiency claim, we view all the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the government, and determine 

whether any reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond 

a reasonable doubt. United States v. Richard, 969 F.2d 849, 856 

(10th Cir. 1992). A jury may base a conviction of possession with 

intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 

84l(a) (1) upon a finding of constructive possession, and may infer 

intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs seized. United 

States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888 (10th Cir. 1992) . Constructive 

possession may be found if a person knowingly has ownership, 

dominion or control over the narcotics and the premises where the 

narcotics are found. Id. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 3 
We have little difficulty in rejecting Mr. Coslet's challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence on the marijuana charge. 

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Coslet was 

in the marijuana field for the purpose of maintaining and caring 

for the illicit flora, and a reasonable jury easily could have 

viewed his story that he was there for the innocent purpose of 

watching fauna as a dubious fabrication. 

We next turn to the weapons charge . 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) 

criminalizes the "use" of a firearm in connection with a drug 

trafficking offense. Although Mr. Coslet was not carrying the 

weapon when arrested, and did not fire it at any time while the 

agents observed him, such activity is not required to establish 

the "use" of a weapon within the meaning of§ 924(c) (1). The use 

element of§ 924(c) (1) is satisfied when a defendant has ready 

access to a firearm, the firearm was an integral part of the 

criminal undertaking, and its availability increased the 

likelihood that the criminal undertaking would succeed. United 

States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 675 (10th Cir. 1989). Guns are 

a ubiquitous part of the drug trade, facilitating transactions by 

providing protection to dealers, drugs and money. We therefore 

presume a nexus between a readily accessible firearm and a drug 

trafficking offense when an individual with ready access to a 

firearm is involved in a drug trafficking offense. See United 

States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297-98 (10th Cir. 1991). A 

defendant can overcome this presumption by presenting evidence 

that the weapon was present for a reason other than facilitating 

the drug transaction. Id. at 1298 . 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 4 
Although Mr. Coslet claims that he found the shotgun on the 

ground and then put it in his car for safekeeping, the jury 

apparently rejected this explanation. "Access" to a firearm 

requires only that the weapon be available to the defendant in the 

vicinity where the drug offense occurred. ~ United States v. 

Moore, 919 F.2d 1471, 1475 (1 0th Cir. 1990), cert . denied, 111 S. 

Ct. 2812 (1991); United States v. Vasguez, 909 F.2d 235, 239 (7th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2826 (1991). The shotgun was 

loaded, the rear portion of the gun case open, and the marijuana 

field was in an isolated area in which Mr. Coslet would have a 

long warning time of any approaching intruders and thus would have 

ample time to retrieve the gun from the car before a 

confrontation. These facts provide substantial support for the 

verdict. 

II. Failure To Demonstrate That Over 100 

Plants Were Marijuana Plants 

The court sentenced Mr. Coslet to 63 months on the marijuana 

charge in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 841(b) (1) (B) (vii), which 

mandates a minimum prison term of five years for marijuana 

trafficking offenses involving "100 or more marijuana plants 

regardless of weight." Mr. Coslet argues that the prosecution 

failed to establish that at least 100 of the plants discovered at 

the field we re marijuana plants. 

Although defining what constitutes a marijuana "pl ant" is a 

question of law reviewed de nova, we review the district court's 

determination of quantity under a clearly erroneous standard. 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 5 
United States v. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d 1124, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 

1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 884 (1992). 

On appeal, Mr. Coslet concedes that the agents who raided the 

marijuana field testified that they identified and seized 140 

marijuana plants. Aplt. Br. at 33-34. Following identification 

of the plants, the plants were cut down and separated into 14 

bundles of 10 plants each. An agent grabbed random handful 

sample s from each of the 14 bundles and placed these unmarked 

samples into one large bag. The contents of this bag were then 

sent to a lab for analysis. The government concedes that not 

every plant was tested for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active 

ingredient in marijuana . 

We disagree with Mr. Coslet's argument that the government 

must perform THC tests on each marijuana plant seized. Defining 

what constitutes a marijuana plant, and calculating the number of 

plants seized, has proven somewhat problematic, but several 

principals emerge from the case law. 

THC tests need not be performed on each plant where 

sufficiently reliable testimony identifies the plants as 

marijuana . See United States v. Madkour, 930 F.2d 234, 239 (2d 

Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 308 (1991). 21 U.S . C. § 802(16) 

defines marijuana as "[a]ll parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., 

.... " Under this definition, the presence of THC is not 

required for a plant to be considered a marijuana plant. The THC 

content of marijuana plants vary widely, depending on gender, 

maturity, cultivation or breeding methods, and many other factors, 

and individual marijuana plants may even be barren of THC. 

-6 -

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 6 
However, the potential strength and effectiveness of a particular 

marijuana plant is irrelevant for sentencing purposes. A plant 

may be rich or barren of THC, and still be counted under§ 841. 

An expert need not testify as to the botanical identity and 

b i ological viability of plants identified as marijuana for the 

purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1). United States v. Eves, 932 

F.2d 856, 860 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 236 (1991). 

The government need only bring forth sufficiently reliable 

evidence to satisfy the court of the quantity of marijuana by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d at 1129; See 

United States v. Coppock, 919 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990) 

(testimony of police officer who seized plants sufficient to 

establish 120 plants as marijuana plants, where plants were 

available for court's inspection as trial exhibit); United States 

v. Malbrough, 922 F.2d 458, 464-65 (8th Cir. 1990) (upholding 

trial court finding of 75 marijuana plants for sentencing 

purposes, concluding that government count of 100 plants may have 

been inflated by inclusion of tomato plants),~- denied, 112 S. 

Ct. 983 (1992); united States v. Johnson, 944 F.2d 396, 404-06 

(8th Cir. 1991) (packets taken from 6 different locations in house 

need not each be tested for pre sence of cocaine where randomly 

sele cted packe ts taken from two locations tested positive for 

cocaine, and packets taken from other 4 locations appeared to be 

cocaine) . 

Aggressive cross-examination and contr ary evidence in the 

district court is the appropriate forum for the defense to refute 

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 7 
government calculation of quantities under§ 841(b). Appellate 

review is appropriate only for mistakes of law or clear error. 

III. Failure to Submit A Jury Instruction 

For Possession Of Marijuana 

Mr. Coslet contends that the jury may have confused his 

admitted possession of a small amount of marijuana with 

distribution of marijuana, and that the court should have sua 

sponte submitted a jury instruction for simple possession of 

marijuana, or modified the existing jury instruction. Since Mr. 

Coslet failed to request such an instruction, and we find no plain 

error in the district court's instructions to the jury, we reject 

this claim on appeal. See United States v. Joe, 831 F.2d 218, 219 

(10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1072 (1988). 

AFFIRMED. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-3133 Document: 010110176502 Date Filed: 03/03/1993 Page: 8