Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08015/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence L. Schmelzer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

TERRENCE L. SCHMELZER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP G 1992 

"" OBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 92-8015 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-280) 

( D . Wyoming) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Terrence Lee Schmelzer appeals the denial of his 

motion under 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct the 

sentence imposed upon him by the district court. Defendant 

pleaded guilty to two counts of a sixty-four count indictment pur-

* 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: 92-8015 Document: 010110309493 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 1
suant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced to five years on a 

drug dealing count charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 

five years on a conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs count 

charging a violation of 21 u.s.c. § 846, the sentences to run concurrently. Imprisonment is to be followed by four years of supervised release. The plea agreement specifically provided for a 

mandatory minimum sentence of not less than five years nor more 

than forty, which would involve quantities of 100 kilograms or 

more, requiring a sentence under 21 u.s.c. § 841(b)(l)(B). The 

district court made fact findings that the amount of marijuana 

involved was less, within the range covered by 21 u.s.c. 

§ 841(b)(l)(C), which provides for not more than twenty years of 

confinement. Defendant argues that he should have been sentenced 

under § 84l(b)(l)(D) applicable to cases of less than fifty 

kilograms of marijuana, subjecting him to a term of incarceration 

of not more than five years. Defendant also argues that his 

sentence was unlawfully disproportionate to that imposed upon 

codefendants. The conspiracy ended in March 1987, predating the 

sentencing guidelines. 

Under the law applicable to preguidelines crimes, a sentence 

within the statutory limits is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382, 1403 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1023 (1985). We review only to see if the 

district court relied upon misinformation of constitutional magnitude or failed to exercise any discretion in the sentencing process. Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-8015 Document: 010110309493 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 2
Defendant's argument on this point is that the district judge 

made comments at sentencing to the effect that there was between 

eighty-seven and ninety pounds of marijuana, and that that 

quantity would throw him into the§ 84l(b)(l)(D) category. See I 

R. tab 165, sentencing trans. at 9. The presentence report and a 

formal prosecutor's statement calculated the amount of marijuana 

involved to be between 87 and 130 pounds. On this record we 

cannot find that the district court made a finding that there was 

less than fifty kilograms of marijuana involved in the crime, 

particularly considering the stipulation in the plea agreement, 

the presentence report and prosecutor's statement. Even if the 

judge made a misstatement as to the subsection applicable to the 

sentence, the sentence imposed was within the permissible 

statutory range of either sub-section (C) or (D), and there was no 

error of constitutional mag-nitude or evidence of the court's 

failure to exercise discretion. 

As to the argument of disproportionality, again we have to 

apply an abuse of discretion standard unless the disproportionality is of constitutional magnitude. Harmelin v. Michigan, 

U.S. ___ , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 

(1983). The record supports a distinction between defendant's 

culpability and that of the other codefendants who were given less 

incarceration. We find no disparity requiring reversal. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-8015 Document: 010110309493 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 3