Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03094/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everette Vern Guder
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.... 

. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Ter.tb Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

C!e!k 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY RONALD GUDER and EVERETTE ) 

VERN GUDER, true name Everett ) 

Vern Guder, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

Nos. 90-3093, 90-3094 

(D.C. Nos. 89-10059-01 and 02) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ALDISERT,** and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

In this consolidated appeal, Everette Vern Guder and his son, 

Gary Ronald Guder, contest their convictions under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. § 2, for possession with intent to 

distribute 1,000 marijuana plants, a Schedule I controlled 

substance. The Guders focus on the quantity of marijuana plants 

found as the basis for conviction and sentence. Defendants assert 

*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 Ruggero J. Aldisert, United States Senior Circuit 

Court Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 1 
the evidence was insufficient to establish the intent to 

distribute, which warranted the court's giving an instruction on 

simple possession, the lesser included offense. We disagree and 

affirm the district court's refusal to give the instruction. 

However, citing United States v. Labat, 915 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 

1990), defendants correctly urge error in the district court's 

imposition of a monetary fine to pay the costs of incarceration 

when no punitive fine was imposed. We therefore affirm in part 

and reverse in part. 

In July 1989, Allen County, Kansas Undersheriff, Joe 

Robinson, checked out a 160-acre plot of farmland where it was 

suspected marijuana plants were being cultivated. By a creek 

bottom, Robinson discovered about 100 trays of small pots 

containing marijuana plants, some trays containing as many as 36 

individual plants (Plot A). Two days later, Officer Robinson 

returned with another officer and discovered that some of the 

trays had been removed. The two men then followed a trodden path 

which led to vehicle tracks and a second field where marijuana was 

planted (Plot B). Plot B was an open area surrounded by heavy 

timber and fenced off with barbed wire. In this area, Officer 

Robinson found 61⁄2 trays containing plants of similar appearance to 

those seen in Plot A. 

Early the next morning, 1 Officer Robinson returned to Plot B 

to surveil the area and observed two men hauling buckets from the 

creek to water the plants, separating the male and female plants, 

1

officer Robinson surveilled the area the previous night with 

success. 

-2-

no 

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 2 
and planting the female plants. 2 The two were arrested and 

identified themselves as Everette and Gary Guder, a local farmer 

and his son, both longtime residents of the county. After 

photographing the area, officers later seized approximately 3,000 

plants from Plot A, and 232 planted marijuana plants and 300 

unplanted pots from the second location. 

At trial, the government offered evidence of the number of 

plants, the testing results from different plant samples, the 

ownership of the land and its lease to Mr. Everette Guder, and the 

eyewitness accounts of the arresting officers. In addition, the 

government was permitted to elicit testimony from a custodial 

officer who, during pretrial detention, overheard Mr. Gary Guder 

tell his sister in a telephone conversation, "All they found was 

that small patch I was working on. I don't think they found it 

all. 113 Through cross-examination, defendants attempted to 

establish the lack of connection between Plot A, where they 

weren't seen, and Plot B, where they were found with a 

substantially smaller number of plants. Based on the number of 

plants actually tested and the size of the plants, defendants 

argued the evidence established their possession of marijuana but 

was devoid of the necessary element to prove intent to distribute. 

Nevertheless, the jury found both defendants guilty of the charge, 

and the court sentenced Mr. Everette Guder to 120-months 

2The male plants are removed and discarded to prevent crosspollination, permitting the female plants to produce more 

marijuana. 

3The statement was redacted to avoid hearsay problems. In the 

original statement, the witness stated he overheard "we were 

working on." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 3 
imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, and assessed 

$145,205.70 for the costs of incarceration. The court sentenced 

Mr. Gary Guder to 240-months imprisonment, 4 10 years of supervised 

release, and assessed $290,411.40 for the costs of confinement. 

Defendants raise three issues all related to the question of 

quantity. First, defendants contend the court erred in refusing 

to give their proffered instruction on simple possession by 

looking only to the alleged total number of plants found rather 

than tangible evidence of actual distribution. Second, they 

maintain the court erred in instructing the jury that the 

government need only prove "a measurable amount of marijuana" was 

involved. 5 Thus, although the government could substitute 

quantity for proof of intent, defendants argue, the jury was told 

the government did not have to prove any particular quantity. 

Third, although the court ignored exact quantity for purposes of 

proof of guilt, its finding defendants possessed 1,000 plants for 

purposes of sentencing was clearly erroneous. 

4

A prior conviction lengthened Gary Guder's sentence. However, in 

imposing the sentences, the court noted it was "somewhat amazed" 

by the mandatory minimum sentences it was required to impose, 

recognizing the impact on a tightly knit farm family that had made 

an effort for additional income, "maybe a greedy one," and "the 

family is what we generally hurt more than the defendant." R. IV, 

395. 

5 Instruction No. 9 stated: 

In the indictment, it is alleged that a particular 

amount or quantity of mariJuana was involved. The 

evidence in this case need not establish that the amount 

or quantity of marijuana was the same as that alleged in 

the indictment, but only that a measurable _amount of 

marijuana was in fact the subject of the act charged in 

the indictment. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 4 
We address each issue in order. Defendants contend the 

evidence established only simple possession, requiring the court 

to instruct the jury on the lesser offense. In support, they urge 

there was no evidence of any sale of marijuana; the plants were 

immature, containing no buds yet; and only 90 plants had been 

tested. However, none of these factors alone or cumulated is 

sufficient to overcome the inference arising from the presence of 

over 1,000 and perhaps as many as 3,000 marijuana plants. 

Whether the marijuana plants in this case contained buds or 

had matured sufficiently to harvest for sale is immaterial. Under 

the now extant case law, a marijuana plant, seedling, cutting, or 

mature plant, is a "plant" as that term is used in the Guidelines. 

See u.s.s.G § 2D1.1 at 2.47; United States v. Corley, 909 F.2d 

359, 361 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed, cuttings with "a degree of root 

formation" to survive are plants. United States v. Carlisle, 907 

F.2d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Eves, No. 

90-3230 (10th Cir. 1991). 6 Thus, for purposes of proving intent, 

this quantity of immature plants is dispositive. Their sheer 

number leads inexorably to a conclusion that defendants possessed 

marijuana with the intent to distribute. United States v. MolinaIguado, 894 F.2d 1452 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 95 

(1990); United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir.), 

6 In United States v. Eves, No. 90-3230 (10th Cir. 1991), we 

recently stated that "a marijuana 'plant' includes those cuttings 

accompanied by root balls. Whether the plant could survive on its 

own would not be an issue; if it looks like a 'plant'--that is, if 

it has a reasonable root system--it will be considered a 'plant.'" 

Slip op. at 11. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 5 
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1023 (1985). Under these circumstances, 

evidence of any particular sale is not required. 

To support a conviction of possession with intent to 

distribute, the government must establish the defendants possessed 

marijuana, knew the substance was marijuana, and intended to 

distribute it. United States v. Howard, 895 F.2d 722, 724 (11th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3286 (1990). Defendants' presence 

on Plot B, watering and transplanting the marijuana plants, 

coupled with the number of plants, provides each of the necessary 

elements of the offense. 

Upon this proof, no instruction on the lesserincluded-offense of simple possession can be seated. To warrant 

giving such an instruction, we have said: (1) a proper request 

must be made; (2) the lesser-included-offense must consist of 

some, but not all, of the elements of the offense charged; (3) the 

element differentiating the two offenses must be a matter in 

dispute; and (4) a jury must be able to rationally convict the 

defendant of the lesser offense. United States v. Joe, 831 F.2d 

218, 219 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1072 (1988), 

citing Fitzgerald v. United States, 719 F.2d 1069, 1071 (10th Cir. 

1983). Although defendants satisfied the first three components 

of this test, we are not convinced a rational jury could find the 

defendants possessed at least 1,000 plants, each plant producing 

b t k ·1 f . . 7 f 1 1 8 a ou a h i ogram o mariJuana, or persona use on y. Te 

7Th' is f' igure is . t k a en from the Sentencing Guidelines, Drug 

Quantity Table, at 2.47. 

8

while not required to do so, we note there is no evidence of 

personal use in the record. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 6 
district court properly denied giving the requested instruction. 

Despite defendants' effort to set off quantity for proof of 

intent against quantity as an essential element of the crime in 

order to discredit Instruction No. 9, the district court properly 

instructed the jury that "only a measurable amount of marijuana" 

was the subject of the act charged. Under 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a), any 

amount of marijuana manufactured, distributed, dispensed or 

possessed with intent to perform that act is prohibited. We have 

previously addressed the error of superimposing the sentencing 

requirements of § 84l(b) upon the crimes defined in§ 841(a). 

United States v. Jenkins, 866 F.2d 331, 334 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Subsection (a) defines only the 'prohibited acts' under section 

841. Subsection (b), the sentencing provision, is applicable only 

after a conviction under § 841(a). Thus, a failure to find a 

specific quantity under§ 84l(a) neither invalidates the jury's 

fact-finding function nor undermines the conviction. Id. 

When an indictment does allege that a particular 

quantity is involved, the effect is only to put the 

defendant on notice that the enhanced penalty provisions 

of Section 841(b) may apply. Because the quantity is 

relevant only to enhancement of the sentence, the 

government is not required to prove the quantity 

alleged, unless of course specification of the 

particular quantity is somehow misleading to the 

defendant as to the conduct or transaction that is the 

basis of the charge. 

United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.), cert. 

denied, 111 S. Ct. 363 (1990). Defendants' contention is, thus, 

without merit. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 7 
Quantity, however, is the basis for sentencing under 

§ 841(b). 9 Looking to the marijuana plants seized at the time of 

arrest and "other marijuana plants found on the property," the 

district court concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that 

"over 3,000 marijuana plants constitute the quantity of drugs to 

determine the offense level." Applying this number to the Drug 

Quantity Table of the Guidelines resulted in a Base Offense Level 

26, which was factored into Mr. Gary Guder's total sentencing 

calculation and produced a guideline range of 63 to 78 months. 

However, because the statutory minimum sentence was greater than 

the maximum applicable guideline sentence, the court imposed the 

statutory minimum sentence of ten years. u.s.s.G. § SGl.l(b). 

To reverse the sentence, we must find the district court 

clearly erred in finding the quantity of marijuana on which 

sentence was based. United States v. Harris, 903 F.2d 770, 778 

(10th Cir. 1990). Under United States v. Ware, 897 F.2d 1538, 

1542-43 (10th Cir. 1990), quantities of drugs involved in the 

crime but not charged in the indictment may be used in determining 

the base offense level. The 1,000 plants in this case charged in 

the indictment are fully supported and established by the record. 

Moreover, the Guidelines provide that the statutory minimum 

sentence "shall be the guideline sentence" in the event it 

conflicts with the guideline calculation. U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b); 

United States v. Larotonda, (No. 90-1486, 2d Circuit, March 11, 

1991); United States v. Garcia-Pillado, 898 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 

9subsection (b) states: "Except as otherwise provided in section 

859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection 

(a) of this section shall be sentenced .... " 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 8 
1990). Consequently, the district court properly superimposed the 

statutory minimum sentence under the facts of this case. Although 

the resulting sentences based on this number of plants are harsh, 

particularly in the case of Mr. Everette Guder, now sixty-three 

years old, Congress has spoken, and we cannot disregard the import 

of the evidence to evade this message under§ 84l(b). Surely the 

magnitude of the sentences may cause others contemplating similar 

botanical pursuits to reevaluate their harvest plans. 

Finally, the fines to cover the costs of incarceration under 

u.s.s.G. § 5El.2(i) cannot be imposed and must be reversed under 

our holding in United States v. Labat, 915 F.2d at 603. The court 

assessed no punitive fine, thus undercutting the basis for the 

"additional" fine. Id. at 607. We therefore AFFIRM defendants' 

convictions, but VACATE the imposition of the fines under 

§ 5El.2(i). 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-9-

Appellate Case: 90-3094 Document: 010110105147 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 9