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

### OCT 7 1998 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ROBERT RANDALL WARD,

Defendant-Appellant, and MID-AMERICA CHEMICAL, INC.,

Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ROBERT RANDALL WARD,

Defendant, and MID-AMERICA CHEMICAL, INC.

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-6397 (D.C. No. 97-CR-48) (W.D. Okla.)

No. 97-6415 (D.C. No. 97-CR-48) (W.D. Okla.)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In these consolidated direct criminal appeals, defe ndants challenge the fines imposed by the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571. On appeal, defendants argue that the fines are excessive and unsupported by the record, and that the district court did not consider the factor s required under 18 U.S.C. § 3572 and clearly erred in finding that defendants’ finan cial documentation was unreliable. This court reviews the imposition of afine only for an abuse of discretion, and the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Trujillo , 136 F.3d 1388, 1398 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , ___ U.S.-3-

___ (Oct. 5, 1998) (No. 97-8977). Having jurisdict ion to consider these appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we aff irm. Defendant Robert Randall Ward is the sole owner of Defendant Mid-America Chemical, Incorporated. Mr. Ward pled guilty to one count of possessing iodine with the knowledge that recordkeeping and reporting requirements had not been met, in violation of 21 U .S.C. §§ 830, 841(g)(2). The district court sentenced Mr. Ward to five years’ pr obation and fined him $25,000. On behalf of his corporation, Mr. Ward pled guilty to one count of distributing chemicals and equipment that could be used to manuf acture methamphetamine, while having reasonable cause to believe that the m aterials would be so used, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(7), and one count o f distributing iodine while having reasonable cause to believe that the chemica l would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S .C. § 841(d)(2). The district court sentenced the corporation to five ye ars’ probation and fined it $200,000. In light of the inconsistencies in the financial do cumentation provided by defendants, as well as the inability of Mr. Ward to explain those inconsistencies, the district court’s finding that defendants’ finan cial documentation was unreliable was not clearly erroneous. Further, in imposing these fines, the district court expressly stated that it had considered the r equisite § 3572(a) factors, and-4-

the record supports this assertion. See Trujillo , 136 F.3d at 1398. The sentencing court is not required to make specific findings of fact as to each of the relevant factors. See id. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ appel late arguments, we cannot say the district court abused its discret ion in imposing these fines. We, therefore, AFFIRM the judgments of the United S tates District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge