Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04142/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary A. Fisher
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

' 

FILED 

United States C:Ourt of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAR 14 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GARY A. FISHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-4142 

(D. C. No. 86-CR-146-J) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER ARD JUDGHEliT* 

Before AHDERSOR, TACBA, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Fisher appeals the denial of his motion to correct an 

allegedly 

sentence. 

illegal, pre-United States Sentencing Guidelines 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4142 Document: 010110031099 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Fisher pled guilty to two counts of a multi-count 

indictment including drug related charges. He was then convicted 

as charged for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute 

"approximately one (1) kilogram" of cocaine. The court sentenced 

Mr. Fisher to probation for five years on the conspiracy count and 

to five years incarceration plus a special parole term of three 

years on the possession count. Mr. Fisher subsequently filed a 

motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to correct an illegal sentence 

wherein he challenged only the special parole term. The district 

court denied this motion with a summary order, dated August 15, 

1990. 

Mr. Fisher appeals prose asserting that a special parole 

term could not be imposed. The question we must answer is: Under 

which penalty section of the law was Mr. Fisher sentenced? Mr. 

Fisher contends he was sentenced under 21 u.s.c. § 841(b)(l)(A), 

which provides for a maximum sentence of twenty years with no 

special parole term. The Government contends Mr. Fisher was 

sentenced under 21 u.s.c. S 841(b)(l)(B), which provides a maximum 

sentence of fifteen years and authorizes a special term of parole 

to be imposed. 1 

21 U.S.C. § 841 is a lengthy statute. Section 84l(a) defines 

1 United States v. Garcia, 879 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 1989) explains 

the history and purposes of the sentencing statutes in question 

here. Garcia gives some flavor of the numerous amendments to 

§ 841 enacted in the mid-1980's. See id. at 804-05. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4142 Document: 010110031099 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 2 
the crime. The two subsections afore cited define the penalties. 

The subsection Mr. Fisher cites as the controlling statute is 

applicable only if the violation involved one kilogram or more of 

cocaine. The subsection the Government cites as controlling is 

applicable only if the violation involved less than one kilogram 

of cocaine. 

The indictment charged Mr. Fisher with possession of 

"approximately one (1) kilogram of a mixture containing cocaine." 

Mr. Fisher pled guilty to this indictment. The court, in 

accepting the factual basis of the plea, made no factual finding 

concerning the quantity of drugs involved. Because there was 

neither an allegation of the required mini.mum quantity (one 

kilogram or more), nor a finding by the court of a kilogram or 

more, the court could not have properly imposed an enhanced 

sentence under S 841(b)(l)(A). United States v. Crockett, 812 

F.2d 626, 629 (10th Cir. 1987). The district court was therefore 

required to sentence under S 842(b)(l)(B), as contended by the 

Government. 

Crockett also directs our focus to the indictment, rather 

than to understandings evidenced in the plea agreement. See 812 

F.2d at 629. ("The defendant was entitled to and did plead guilty 

only to the charges on which he had been formally indicted.") For 

this reason, the plea agreement's failure to modify the drug 

quantity with the word "approximately" -- as did the indictment --

is insignificant. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4142 Document: 010110031099 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 3 
Mr. Fisher, prior to his guilty plea, acknowledged in writing 

that the court could impose a maximum prison term of fifteen years 

and that the court would impose a special parole term of not less 

than three years. This evidences prior knowledge that he was 

being sentenced under the more lenient of the two statutory 

provisions. Moreover, though Mr. Fisher correctly notes that the 

plea bargain misstated the possible fine under§ 84l(b)(l)(B) by 

indicating $250,000 rather than $125,000, ~id.at 1, this error 

avails him nothing. Mr. Fisher was not fined for his offense, and 

the error does not go to the substantive, jurisdictional adequacy 

of the indictment for which he was convicted. See Crockett, 812 

F.2d at 629. 

When a sentence does not comport with the enhanced penalty 

provisions of S 84l(b), that is, when a defendant receives a more 

lenient sentence under a section for which no specific quantity of 

narcotics is required, the sentence under the more lenient 

standard is legal. United States v. Morgan, 835 F.2d 79, 81 (5th 

Cir. 1987). 

Mr. Fisher relies upon United States v. Ward, 696 F. Supp. 

247 (W.D. Tex. 1988) as controlling. Ward is inapplicable. Ward 

was specifically sentenced to a special parole term under 

S 84l(b)(l)(A). Mr. Fisher also cites United States v. 

Santamaria, 788 F.2d 824 (1st Cir. 1986). Santamaria is also 

distinguishable for the same reason. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4142 Document: 010110031099 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 4 
The judgment of the district court denying Mr. Fisher's 

motion to correct an illegal sentence is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-4142 Document: 010110031099 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 5