* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estop pel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3
. 1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 27 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JAMES R. LEDBETTER,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-7016 (D.C. No. CR-95-43-B) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. Defendant James R. Ledbetter, called “Randy,” was c onvicted by a jury on one count of drug trafficking and two firearms offe nses. 1 He appeals from the sentence imposed on the trafficking charge, arguingthat a large quantity of drugs- 2 -

should have been excluded from consideration. We e xercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), and affirm. Defendant’s sentence on the trafficking charge was based on 42.23 grams of methamphetamine seized from his car during a tra ffic stop, and 73.16 grams of methamphetamine found in his mother’s garage in a l ocked matchbox inscribed with the name “Randy.” Defendant was not present when officers searched his mother’s garage and did not consent to their searchof the locked matchbox. Relying on United States v. Salinas-Cano , 959 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1992), he argues that his mother’s consent to search her gara ge did not extend to a locked box bearing his name. He contends that the 73.16 g rams of methamphetamine found in the matchbox should be excluded from the t otal used to calculate his sentence on the trafficking charge, and his sentenc e reduced accordingly. We conclude that Salinas-Cano --a case challenging a conviction--does not apply to the sentencing argument defendant seeks to raise here. See 959 F.2d at 862 & n.1. “This circuit has followed the approachof balancing the effect of applying the exclusionary rule at sentencing agains t the costs of impairing effective and suitable punishment of proven offende rs and unduly complicating sentencing procedures.” United States v. Jessup , 966 F.2d 1354, 1356 (10th Cir. 1992) (footnote omitted) (sentencing guidelines cas e, citing United States v. Graves , 785 F.2d 870, 873 (10th Cir. 1986) (pre-sentencin g guidelines case)). We- 3 -

have observed that unless a defendant shows that il legally obtained evidence was procured by arresting officers in an attempt to enh ance his sentence, applying the exclusionary rule would not achieve any deterrent e ffect on illegal searches to outweigh the detrimental effect on the court’s abil ity to determine an appropriate sentence caused by excluding the evidence. See id. at 1356-57. In the absence of any such showing by defendant in this case, the 73. 16 grams of methamphetamine recovered from the matchbox would be relevant at se ntencing even if the search of the matchbox were held to be illegal. Defendant makes no such showing on appeal, and ther e is no indication in his materials that he made this argument in the dis trict court at all. On our review of the record, we find no plain error. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993). AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge