Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02209/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02209-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
William Wilton
Appellant

Document Text:

.. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS T~nth circuit. 

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM WILTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUL O 21991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2209 

(D.C. No. CR-89-232-21 SC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ARDERSOH, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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-appellant William Wilton appeals the district 

court's failure to adjust his sentencing offense level downward by 

two points for what he considers his minor role in a drug 

cultivation and distribution enterprise. We affirm. 

Wilton purchased and began to develop property for another 

individual who ostensibly intended to establish a horse ranch. 

* 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: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 1 
After some months of work on the project, Wilton became aware of 

the project's true nature: a marijuana propagation venture. 

Wilton then informed the project's backers that he did not wish to 

further associate with them. He did, however, continue to make 

payments on the property, which he had purchased in his own name. 

He also continued to pay the subcontractors and other workers 

improving the land. Although these contracts for the land and 

improvements were in Wilton's name, all payments were made with 

money of the drug ring principals. 

The operation was discovered and Wilton was charged in a 

multicount indictment with conspiracy to manufacture more than 

1,000 marijuana plants, the effectuation of this conspiracy, and 

engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Wilton pleaded 

guilty to a superseding information charging only the 

establishment of a marijuana manufacturing operation in violation 

of 21 u.s.c. S 856(a) and 18 u.s.c. S 2. 

The presentence report prepared in his case recommended the 

base offense level for this crime be enhanced by a two-point 

upward adjustment for Wilton's role as an organizer, leader, 

manager, or supervisor. See United States Sentencing Comm'n, 

Guidelines Manual S 3Bl.l(c) (Nov. 1990). The report also 

accounted for Wilton's acceptance of responsibility and 

accordingly recommended adjusting his offense level downward two 

points under u.s.s.G S 3El.1. Wilton filed objections to the 

presentence report arguing against the upward adjustment, 

supporting the downward adjustment, and suggesting a further 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 2 
downward adjustment of two points under u.s.s.G § 3Bl.2(b) because 

of his allegedly minor role in the enterprise. 

At the sentencing hearing, the judge informed the parties he 

had reviewed the presentence report and asked Wilton's counsel if 

he had any objections to the sentence recommended therein. 

Defense counsel stated he had several objections, which he had 

appended to the presentence report. Defense counsel stated that 

all of his objections focused on the proposed upward adjustment 

for Wilton's alleged supervisory role. The supervisory role 

adjustment was argued to the court at some length, and the court 

decided against the upward adjustment. 

Following this decision, the following discourse occurred: 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: If it pleases the Court, your Honor, my 

final objection is objection number eight to paragraph 

ninety-nine in the presentence report. [Paragraph 

ninety-nine states the probation office found no reason 

to depart from the Guidelines.) 

THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to depart from the 

Guidelines. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: I would only proffer to the Court that 

under 3Bl.2(b), your Honor, that the defendant believes, 

and I believe that a 3Bl.2(b) --- [U.S.S.G § 3Bl.2(b) 

requires a sentencing court to adjust a sentence 

downward two points when the court finds the defendant 

played a minor role in the offense.] 

THE COURT: I'm not going to depart from the Guidelines. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Very well, your Honor. 

the objections I have .•.• 

That is all 

This colloquy reveals the confusion that underpins Wilton's 

appeal. Wilton observes that in the sentencing hearing, the court 

failed to distinguish between a departure and an adjustment, and 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 3 
the court never clearly denied his suggested downward adjustment. 

He argues we should either order the district court to change his 

sentence by subtracting the two point downward adjustment of 

S 3B1.2(b) from his offense level or remand to the district court 

so that court can address the issue more explicitly. 

We normally review the court's decision whether a defendant 

was a minor participant for clear error. United States Y.!.. 

Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1404 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 

S. Ct. 2033 (1991). "We will not reverse the district court unless 

the court's finding was without factual support in the record, or 

if after reviewing all the evidence we are left with the definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." United States 

Y.!.. Beaulieu, 893 F. 2d 1177, :1182 ( 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. 

Ct. 3302 (1990). In this case, however, Wilton has waived the 

adjustment issue for purposes of appealing the sentence and we 

review the failure to decrease the offense level only for manifest 

injustice, see United States Y.!.. Kahn, 835 F.2d 749, 754 (10th Cir. 

1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988); United States Y.!.. 

Hatchett, 923 F.2d 369, 376 (5th Cir. 1991), which is absent here. 

The terms "adjustment" and "departure" were erroneously 

employed at the sentencing hearing. It is clear, however, that the 

onus of this error must be laid at defendant's feet. When asked 

whether he had any objections to the presentence report, defense 

counsel referred to his objection number eight, which contested the 

probation department's conclusion that a departure from the 

Guidelines sentencing range was unwarranted. Defense counsel did 

not raise his objections numbered four or five, which referred to 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 4 
, his proposed downward adjustment under u.s.s.G. § 3Bl.2(b). 

Although defense counsel mentioned the Guidelines section 

addressing a minor participant adjustment when attempting to 

counter the court's refusal to depart, he did not clarify that he 

sought an adjustment rather than a departure. When the court asked 

if he had any objections other than the refusal to depart, defense 

counsel responded in the negative. Wilton therefore has waived the 

adjustment issue for purposes of appealing the sentence. 

Even if the issue had been preserved, however, we are 

confident the court adequately expressed its determination to 

impose the specific sentence from which Wilton now appeals. While 

considering the supervisory role adjustment, the court heard 

extensive testimony from defense counsel regarding Wilton's role in 

the offense. Based on this testimony, the court deducted two 

points from the probation department's suggested offense level, 

leaving Wilton with an offense level of fourteen. The court noted 

this offense level coupled with Wilton's criminal history category 

of one indicated a sentencing range of fifteen to twenty-one 

months. The court then refused to depart from this sentence. 

Although the court was misled as to the mechanism by which defense 

counsel suggested the offense level should be decreased, the 

court's firm intention to reject that suggestion was clear. 

We find no error in this decision. Wilton cannot complain of 

the lack of an explanation for the court's decision to impose the 

sentence he now appeals. The sentencing judge need not state the 

reasons for his factual findings, United States Y.:... Donaldson, 915 

F.2d 612, 615 (10th Cir. 1990), or for imposing a sentence within 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 5 
• 

the Guidelines range when that range spans no more than twenty-four 

months, 18 u.s.c. S 3553(c)(l). 

Moreover, the facts adduced at the sentencing hearing 

adequately support the court's decision that Wilton's role in the 

offense was not minor. See Donaldson, 915 F.2d at 615 (appellate 

court looks not at district court's stated reasons, if any, for 

refusing minor participant adjustment, but at whether record 

contains evidence to reasonably support finding). The court need 

not balance with precision the relative culpability of 

codefendants. United States Y..!.. Caruth, 930 F.2d 811, 815 (10th 

Cir. 1991) (case involving Smith's codefendant). As we have held 

in the related context of sentencing drug couriers: "A drug 

smuggling operation has many participants; some may purchase, some 

may transport, some may distribute, and some may sell. All are 

indispensable to the operation. It would be unproductive to debate 

which function is the more culpable." United States Y..!.. CalderonPorras, 911 F.2d 421, 423 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoted in Caruth, 930 

F.2d at 815). 

Evaluating Wilton's role in the entire operation, see 

u.s.s.G. Ch.3, Pt.B., intro. comment., we find the district court's 

decision to deny the minor participant adjustment reasonably 

supported by the record. Wilton's role as an agent of the drug 

ring's principals in procuring the premises and constructing the 

manufacturing facilities was essential to the operation's success. 

Despite Wilton's dissociation from the project's principals, he 

facilitated the advancement and concealment of the operation by 

continuing to make payments under his own name for the property and 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 6 
"improvements." These facts reasonably support the sentencing 

court's conclusion that Wilton was substantially culpable for the 

criminal operation's success. 

It is clear from the record that the sentencing court was 

convinced Wilton's role in the offense warranted the sentence 

imposed, and we agree with this conclusion. Accordingly, we 

AFFIRM. 

7 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2209 Document: 010110128817 Date Filed: 07/02/1991 Page: 7