T hi sorderand j udgm enti snotbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * law o f th ec a se , res ju dicata, an dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm ayb ec ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its pers uas ive value cons i s tentw ith Fed. R . App. P. 32. 1 and 10th C ir . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e19,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. RO G ER FO Y J EN K I N S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 7015 (E .D . O k la .) ( D . Ct . N o. CR - 04 - 06 3- P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. R o g er F o yJen k ins a p p ea ls from h is sen tenc e. H e c lai m s the d istri ct co u rt i m pr oper l yappl i ed the fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes butfai l ed t o pr ovi de a pr operr ecor d forourr evi ew . L acki ng the abi l i tyt o as s es s t he i s s ues pr es ent ed,- 2-

w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l. B ackgr ound Fol l ow i ng t hr ee c ont r ol l ed buy s of m ethamphet ami ne, J enki ns w as char ged w i t h, and s ubs equent l ypl ed gui l tyt o, pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt ent t o d i s t r i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( v i i i ) . At se n ten c in g , Je n k in s o bjec ted to th e a m o u n t o f m e th a m p h e tam in e listed a s “ a c tu a l” i n t h e p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r to v e rru l e d th e o bj e c t i o n , fi n d i n g b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t th e a m o u n t o f p u re m e th a m p h e tam in e listed in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s la b re p o rts w a s a p p ro p ria telyu se d in th e p re -se n ten c e re p o rt to determ i ne Jenk i ns’s sent encing range u nd er the g uidel i nes. A n a ly sis J enki ns chal l enges t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cl as s i fi cat i on of the m e th a m p h e tam in e a s “ a c tu a l,” in ste a d o f a “ m ix tu re .” W e d e c lin e to c o n sid e r th is i s s ue bec aus e J enki ns has fai l ed t o pr es enta pr operr ecor d on appea l . J enki ns has notpr ovi ded the pr e- s ent ence r eport( PSR ) ora tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng heari ng . B oth of t hese do cum ents are necessaryfor us t o revi ew Jenkins’ s cl ai m s, a s th e ya re th e o fficia l re c o rd o f th e d istric t co u rt’s h o ld in g s. Je n k in s h a s o n ly p ro v id e d th e c ler k ’s m in u tes , w h ich a re n o t su fficie n tlyd e taile d to su p p o rt h is cl ai m s . “Th[i s ] courtneed notr emedyanyfai l ur e bycouns el t o des i gnat e an ad eq u ate rec o rd. W h en the p artyasse rt ing an issue fa il s to p rov ide a rec o rd su fficie n t fo r c o n sid e rin g th a t issu e , the c o u rt m a yd e c lin e to c o n sid e r it. ” 1 0 th- 3-

C ir. R . 1 0 .3 (B ); se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . R o drig u ez-F e lix , 450 F. 3d 1117, 1132 (10 th C ir . ) (ap p ly ing 1 0 th C ir . R . 1 0 . 3 (B ) an d d ec li n ing to co n side r de fe n d an t’ s claim w h ere d efen d an t did n o t i n clud e P S R o bjecti o n s in the rec o rd o n ap p ea l) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 4 2 0 (20 0 6 ). Jen k ins a lso su g g ests the d istri ct co u rterred u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). If the d istri ct co u rtap p li ed the g u idelines as a d v isory , there can be no B ookererro r. Un itedS ta tes v . Visin a iz , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [ B ] e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o tc o n s i d e rth e g u i d e l i n e s m a n d a t o ry, t her e w as no B ookere rr o r, c o n s titu tio n a l o r n o n -c o n s titu tio n a l.” ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 1101 ( 2006) . Si nce J enki ns has notpr ovi ded a tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng hear i ng he ca nnot , i n good fai th, s aythe di s tr i ctcour tappl i ed the g u id e lin e s o th e r th a n in a n a d v iso ryfa sh io n . T h e re fo re , w e a lso d e c lin e to c o n s id e r t h is is s u e . See 1 0 th C ir . R . 1 0 . 3 (B ) (20 0 7 ). DI S M I S S ED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge