Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05128/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Alan Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

, 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

U!iitcd States C-:>urt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 1 ~ 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

RODNEY ALAN SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5128 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-149-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Smith appeals from the sentence imposed by the district 

court following his plea of guilty on counts of possession with 

*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: 90-5128 Document: 010110119398 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 1 
intent to distribute methamphetamine, maintenance of premises for 

the purpose of distributing controlled substances, possession of a 

firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and other firearm 

offenses. He argues that the government's evidence was 

insufficient for the district court to conclude upon sentencing 

that he distributed thirty-six ounces of methamphetamine, and that 

the district court erred in not reducing his sentence for 

acceptance of responsibility. We disagree and affirm the district 

court on both grounds. 

The district court calculated the appropriate guideline range 

based on several sources of information concerning the quantity of 

methamphetamine distributed by Mr. Smith. Officer Paul Williams, 

who performed the search of Mr. Smith's business, testified that 

he and a confidential informant purchased methamphetamine from Mr. 

Smith sometime prior to the issuance of the search warrant. 

Officer Williams also testified that he had two other confidential 

sources who provided him with information on the sale of 

methamphetamine from Mr. Smith's business. Also, Officer Williams 

testified that during the two-hour warrant search of Mr. Smith's 

business, the police answered many phone calls inquiring into the 

availability of methamphetamine. Based on this information, 

Officer Williams estimated that Mr. Smith was selling 

approximately three ounces of methamphetamine per week for at 

least the three-month period Mr. Smith was under investigation. 

The only conflicting testimony offered was Mr. Smith's own denial 

of the amount of methamphetamine he sold. He testified that he 

had sold only three and one half grams, not ounces, per week, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5128 Document: 010110119398 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 2 
which would mean that he sold under two ounces of methamphetamine 

during the three-month investigation. The only support for this 

estimate was his own recollection. 

We will uphold the finding of facts by the district court in 

sentencing unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. United 

States v. Beaulieu, 900 F.2d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

110 S. Ct. 3252 (1990). Mr. Smith was not charged with 

distributing a particular amount of methamphetamine. Therefore, 

the district court properly estimated the amount distributed based 

on a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Easterlingf 

921 F.2d 1073, 1077 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 

S. Ct. __ , 1991 WL 72541 (1991). The district court may 

consider amounts estimated in the presentence report, although not 

specified in the indictment. United States v. Ware, 897 F.2d 

1538, 1542-43 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 2629 (1990). 

In addition, for sentencing purposes, the district court may 

consider amounts not charged in the indictment, but proven by a 

preponderance of the evidence to be "part of the same course of 

conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." 

u.s.s.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). 

In the present case, the district court simply found the 

preponderance of the evidence submitted by the parties pointed to 

Mr. Smith having distributed thirty-six ounces over the period of 

the three-month investigation. This conclusion was reached by 

weighing Mr. Smith's testimony about his own activities against 

the information provided by Officer Williams. We find no abuse of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5128 Document: 010110119398 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 3 
discretion in arriving at what seems to be a reasonable estimate 

of the amount of methamphetamine distributed by Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Smith next claims that the district court erred in 

denying him a two-point reduction in his sentence for acceptance 

of responsibility under Guidelines§ 3El.1. The defendant bears 

the burden of proof at sentencing of establishing acceptance of 

responsibility. United States v. Whitehead, 912 F.2d 448, 450 

(10th Cir. 1990). Note five of the commentary to § 3El.1 states 

that the sentencing judge "is in a unique position to evaluate a 

defendant's acceptance of responsibility," and therefore is 

"entitled to great deference on review." See also United 

States v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1394, 1402 (10th Cir. 1990) (appellate 

review of a . district court's findings on acceptance of 

responsibility "must be highly deferential"), cert. denied, 111 

S. Ct. 761 (1991). 

Note one of the commentary to§ 3El.1 lists as appropriate 

considerations for determining acceptance of responsibility: 

(d) voluntary surrender to authorities 

after commission of the offense; 

promptly 

(e) voluntary assistance to authorities in the recovery 

of the fruits and instrumentalities of the offense; 

(g) the timeliness of the defendant's conduct in 

manifesting the acceptance of responsibility. 

Mr. Smith does not dispute that he attempted to hide himself and 

the methamphetamine when the police arrived at his business to 

execute the search warrant in September 1989. Nor does he dispute 

that he refused to come out of hiding when spotted by the police, 

forcing them to drag him out from underneath a car to conduct the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5128 Document: 010110119398 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 4 
search. There are also allusions by the district court in its 

discussion of acceptance of responsibility during the sentencing 

hearing to other actions by Mr. Smith that undermine his argument. 

The district court discussed this issue at some length and 

concluded Mr. Smith had not accepted responsibility for his crime. 

Comparing Mr. Smith's behavior with the considerations listed in 

the commentary to§ 3El.1, we find the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding Mr. Smith had not accepted 

responsibility for his actions. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5128 Document: 010110119398 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 5