Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeff SWEESY, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-27
Citations: 272 F.3d 581
Docket Number: No. 01-1594SD
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeff SWEESY, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, BRIGHT, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 272
Pages: 581–584

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeff SWEESY, Appellant.
No. 01-1594SD.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 16, 2001.
Filed: Nov. 27, 2001.
Lara R. Roetzel, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellant.
Mark A. Vargo, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellee.
Before BYE, BRIGHT, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeff Sweesy was convicted by a jury of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. The District Court sentenced him to 13 years and 8 months (140 months) in prison, and he appeals.
We think the issues are familiar and do not require extended discussion. Defendant first asserts that the evidence was insufficient to make out a jury question on all of the elements of the crime of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine. The government's evidence was not abundant, but it was sufficient. Defendant was in possession of three of the four ingredients necessary for manufacture. On a recent occasion, he had sold methamphetamine that had recently been manufactured by someone. He knew how to manufacture it, and had discussed methods of manufacturing with another person. We think a reasonable jury could have found from this evidence, along with the other evidence in the record, that the defendant possessed the ingredients for manufacture, together with some other drug paraphernalia, that this possession was an affirmative step towards the completion of the crime of manufacturing, and that defendant intended to complete the crime, and would have done so had he not been interrupted by a search.
Defendant's principal other argument is that the District Court abused its discretion in denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The defendant pleaded not guilty and went to trial. He denied two of the essential elements of the crime, intent and an affirmative step towards the completion of the underlying offense. We recognize that this is not an absolute bar to the reduction requested. It is, however, primarily for the district judge, the person on the spot, to make a moral judgment as to the defendant's level of contrition. Here, defendant not only denied essential elements of the crime, he contested some of the government's subsidiary evidentiary facts. This was the District Court's call. We see no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
. The Hon. Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.