Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06345/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06345-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Wayne Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

. FIL!ZO 

Ufuted St#tt,r~ t:AI.m of Apf~aJ.s Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ldJ G l ·i 19QO 

!OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GARY WAYNE JOHNSON I 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6345 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-89-116-A) 

Submitted on the Briefs: 1 

Timothy D. Leonard, United States Attorney, and Frank Michael 

Ringer, Assistant United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

on the briefs for plaintiff-appellee. 

William P. Earley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, on the briefs for defendant-appellant. 

Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and PARKER, * District 

Judge. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

Mr. Johnson appeals his conviction on two counts of 

committing theft from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 

1 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* The Honorable James A. Parker, United States District Judge 

for the District of New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 1 
u.s.c. § 659, and he further appeals the sentences • 

.L.. 

Mr. Johnson first asserts that "the evidence adduced by the 

defense, coupled with a lack of direct evidence on the issue of 

the identity of the person who actually took the items, render[s] 

his convictions suspect and warrant[s] reversal." We read this 

contention as an assertion that insufficient evidence exists to 

establish that Mr. Johnson committed the crimes. 

When there exists a claim of insufficient evidence to support 

the criminal conviction, we review the evidence, both direct and 

circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the government. We 

then decide if there is sufficient proof from which a reasonable 

jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. 

Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 (lOth Cir. 1989). 

The Arkansas Freightway Terminal located in Oklahoma City was 

broken into on December 11, 1988. Entry into the terminal grounds 

was made by cutting off a lock attached to the gate. This lock 

was replaced with a lock from an unknown source. Fifty RCA 

camcorders with a value of $47,400 and four JVC stereo systems 

valued at $2,805 were stolen from two separate trailers located 

within the terminal. All of these goods were part of an 

interstate shipment in route from Houston, Texas, to Weatherford, 

Oklahoma. The stolen stereo equipment was located in a trailer at 

door 18 of the terminal and the stolen Camcorders were located in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 2 
a trailer at door 49 of the terminal. 

We now turn our attention to the evidence before the jury 

which tended to show that Mr. Johnson was the person who stole the 

camcorders and stereo equipment. Mr. Webb testified that he was a 

supervisor at the terminal and that Mr. Johnson was then employed 

at the terminal. Mr. Webb stated that Mr. Johnson knew where the 

stereo equipment was located because Mr. Johnson had handled this 

stereo equipment on Friday, December 9. Mr. Dearing testified 

that in mid-December he purchased a camcorder from Mr. Johnson for 

$300 or $400. Mr. Arnold testified that Mr. Johnson delivered 37 

camcorders and two stereos to the home of Mr. Arnold between 11:00 

and 12:00 in the evening on December 11; that Mr. Johnson 

delivered these items in an orange 1970 or 1971 Chevrolet pickup 

which belonged to Mr. Johnson's brother; and that Mr. Johnson told 

Mr. Arnold that he (Mr. Arnold) could sell the camcorders and keep 

all monies which Mr. Arnold received over $300-350 per unit. 

Agent Cross testified that on December 16 he received permission 

from Mr. Johnson's brother to search the pickup and that he found 

in the pickup a bolt cutter and boxes which came from the 

terminal. Mr. Johnson's brother denied knowledge of the bolt 

cutter, and testified that he had loaned his pickup to the 

defendant on the evening of December 11. Melody Johnson, the exwife of defendant Johnson, testified that on December 11 she and 

Mr. Johnson had gone to a flea market and Mr. Johnson was looking 

at bolt cutters. Mrs. Johnson further testified that later in 

December the defendant bought her a car and paid $3,500 cash for 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 3 
it and that he also bought her furniture for $1,054.7q. Mrs. 

Johnson also testified that she found a set of keys and gave them 

to the FBI. The FBI agent subsequently found that one of these 

keys opened the new lock that had been placed on the terminal 

gate. By stipulation it was admitted that the bolt cutters found 

in the brother's pickup were the ones used to cut the lock found 

on the ground near door 18 of the terminal. 

The evidence submitted to the jury and the inferences to be 

drawn therefrom clearly provide substantial support for the jury's 

verdict. Mr. Johnson was an employee of the terminal and knew 

where the stolen equipment had been located. Mr. Johnson sold 

some of the recently stolen property to Mr. Dearing and delivered 

a significant amount of the stolen property to Mr. Arnold. The 

bolt cutters found in the brother's pickup were the ones used to 

cut one of the terminal locks, and the boxes found in the pickup 

came from the terminal. Mr. Johnson had the use of the pickup 

when the thefts were committed. Mrs. Johnson found in the home 

she shared with Mr. Johnson a key to the lock that had been placed 

on the east gate to the yard after the original lock had been cut 

off. 

The defendant testified and contradicted the testimony of 

nearly all of the government's witnesses. The jury heard the 

testimony and obviously chose not to accept the defendant's. The 

assessment of the credibility of the witness is within the sole 

discretion of the jury. United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 4 
1391 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 474 u.s. 1023 (1985). 

There can be no doubt the evidence was sufficient to sustain 

the conviction. 

Mr. Johnson was sentenced to 37 months on each count to run 

concurrently. 

The sentence was based upon a total offense level of 17 and a 

criminal history category of III. The total offense level was 

calculated, in part, by increasing the base offense level by 2 

levels. This increase was based on the sentencing court's finding 

that the offense involved more than minimal planning. 

§ 2Bl. 1 (b) ( 4) . 

2 

The presentence report, in particular paragraph 13 thereof, 

stated that the base offense level should be increased because the 

offense involved more than minimal planning. The presentence 

report cited Mr. Johnson's procurement and use of bolt cutters, 

avoidance of the alarm system and knowledge of which two of fifty 

trailers to burglarize in support of its conclusion that the 

offenses involved more than minimal planning. Mr. Johnson's 

response did not challenge these facts but rather argued that 

nothing indicated that "the theft involved any in-depth thought or 

2 Section 2Bl.l(b) (4) states as follows: "If the offense 

involved more than minimal planning, increase by 2 levels." 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 5 
special skill." 

At the sentencing hearing the court asked counsel for Mr. 

Johnson if he had any presentation concerning his objections. 

Defense counsel replied that he had no evidence to offer and the 

court "could probably rule on based on the testimony at trial." 

The court overruled the objections. Mr. Johnson then had nothing 

to say in response to the district court's invitation. Counsel 

for Mr. Johnson gave a short argument which did not touch upon 

this point and the court imposed sentence. 

Mr. Johnson first complains that the district court failed to 

make factual findings and then argues that the term "more than 

minimal planning" as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines should 

not be applied in the instant case. 

We first address Mr. Johnson's argument that the district 

court made no factual findings. In this case the presentence 

report increases the offense level for "more than minimal 

planning" due to the existence of three factors, the procurement 

and use of the bolt cutters, the avoidance of the alarm system, 

and the prior knowledge of which two of the fifty trailers 

contained the merchandise. Mr. Johnson's response neither denied 

nor challenged these facts but simply asserted that the theft 

involved no in-depth thought or special skill. The district court 

then gave Mr. Johnson the opportunity to present evidence, which 

was declined. Mr. Johnson's counsel then addressed the court 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 6 
stating: "[W]ith respect to presenting 

arguments on minimal planning are 

arguments." The district court then stated: 

the defense are overruled." 

any evidence, the 

essentially legal 

"(T]he objections of 

Normally the district court should set forth its specific 

factual findings. However, in the instant case the facts utilized 

by the district court in adjusting the offense levels are listed 

in the presentence report and are clear and beyond doubt. 

Moreover, the court adopted those facts in its Statement of 

Reasons for Imposing Sentence. Mr. Johnson has made no claim that 

these were not the facts utilized by the court nor has he made any 

claim that he was misled. It is significant to note that Mr. 

Johnson never challenged the factual accuracy of the information 

contained in the presentence report. Only when the defendant 

challenges the factual accuracy of this report does Sentencing 

Guidelines Rule 32(c)(3)(D) require the court's findings to be 

reduced to writing. 

We now address whether these facts are adequate as a matter 

of law to increase the offense level for "more than minimal 

planning." 

In reviewing an assertion that the district court's 

application of the guidelines to the facts is erroneous, we must 

accept the factual findings of the district court unless they are 

clearly erroneous, and we must give due deference to the district 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 7 
court's application of the ~idelines to the facts. 18 u.s.c. 

§ 3742(e). We will reverse only if we are left with a definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United 

States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1182 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 

110 S. Ct. 3302 (1990). 

Applying this standard of review, we first find there is no 

controversy concerning the facts found by the district court; 

indeed, Mr. Johnson accepts the facts. In looking at the 

application of the guidelines, we look first to the plain language 

of the guidelines. The commentary defines the term "more than 

minimal planning" as "more planning than is typical for commission 

of the offense in simple form." In the present case the district 

court adopted the presentence report findings that: (1) advance 

knowledge was obtained in order to know which two of the fifty 

trailers had the goods the defendant desired to steal; (2) bolt 

cutters had to be procured in advance; (3) an alarm system had to 

be avoided. Combining these factors, it becomes obvious that a 

plan was formulated and implemented. The plan involved 

identifying the goods and their location, the necessity for and 

the obtaining of the necessary tools to gain entry--not only into 

the freight terminal but into the trailers, and the eluding of an 

alarm system which was designed to deter such thefts. Such 

activity clearly evidences more than "minimal planning" as defined 

by the Sentencing Guidelines. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 8 
Mr. Johnson next asserts that the district court erred by 

applying the aggravating role adjustment in its computation of his 

sentence. 

Section 3Bl.l(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which is 

entitled "Aggravating Role," provides that the offense level will 

be increased by two levels if the defendant was an "organizer, 

leader, manager or supervisor in any criminal activity." 

Paragraph 14 of the presentence report provides: 

Adjustment for Role in the Offense: The investigative 

reports clearly identify the defendant as the primary 

organizer and most culpable participant in the instant 

offense. Pursuant to 3Bl.l(c), a two point enhancement 

is warranted. 

Mr. Johnson responded to this portion of the Presentence 

Report by arguing that Mr. Arnold was as culpable as Mr. Johnson. 

He asserted that Mr. Arnold received at least one-half of the 

proceeds of the crime, actively sold some of the stolen goods, and 

was involved in the concealing of the stolen goods from the 

authorities. 

Again Mr. Johnson complains of the district court's lack of 

factual findings. The development of this point before the 

district court proceeded as did the minimal planning issue. Mr. 

Johnson never contested the facts and contents himself with 

arguing that the facts do not warrant an increase. A fair reading 

of the record leaves no doubt as to the facts utilized by the 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 9 
parties and ~he court. Likewise, this court has no doubt as to 

the facts found by the district court. This court will seldom 

affirm a sentencing decision where the district court fails to 

announce what facts influenced its decision. The instant case is 

an exception· due only to the fact that the specific facts 

considered by the court were clear beyond all doubt. Again, it is 

important to note that no factual challenge was made. The facts 

were clearly set forth in the presentence report and adopted by 

the trial court, and these facts were never controverted. 

A sentencing hearing was held, which has been summarized 

under the prior discussion, and the district court overruled Mr. 

Johnson's objection to this increase in the offense level. 

On appeal Mr. Johnson argues that this increase cannot apply 

unless the offense was committed by more than one participant. 

Mr. Johnson asserts that, under the government's theory and as 

shown by the facts at trial, Mr. Johnson acted alone in committing 

the theft and, assuming that Mr. Arnold was an accessory after the 

fact, Mr. Arnold's conduct was no more significant than Mr. 

Johnson's. 

There was ample evidence introduced during the course of the 

trial to establish Mr. Johnson as the organizer of "criminal 

activity." Mr. Johnson planned and executed the crime. He 

recruited Mr. Arnold to "fence" the goods. He retrieved the 

unsold camcorders from Arnold. He kept some of the stolen goods 

-10-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 10 
and sold some himself. It is clear that Mr. Johnson had and 

exercised the decision-making authority, that Mr. Johnson was the 

key participant, and that Mr. Johnson recruited an accomplice and 

exercised control over the stolen goods. These factors are 

specifically mentioned in the guidelines as examples of being an 

organizer or supervisor. 

Again, Mr. Johnson does not contest the facts; rather, he 

contests the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the 

facts. Under these circumstances we must give due deference to 

the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts, 

reversing only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed. In the instant case there can 

be no doubt that Mr. Johnson planned and executed the thefts, just 

as there can be no doubt that he organized and controlled the 

disposition of the stolen property. Mr. Arnold's role was that of 

helping to sell the stolen goods. The district court's 

determination that Mr. Johnson was an organizer, leader, manager 

or supervisor of the criminal activity was correct and should be 

affirmed. 

In summary, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to 

sustain the conviction and the sentences were properly increased 

on the basis of Johnson's more-than-minimal planning and his role 

in the offense. 

The decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

-11-

Appellate Case: 89-6345 Document: 01019370363 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 11