Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward TUBBS, also known as Michael Tubbs, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-12
Citations: 96 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 03-51163
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward TUBBS, also known as Michael Tubbs, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward TUBBS, also known as Michael Tubbs, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51163.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 12, 2004.
Mark Randolph Stelmach, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorneys, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stanley Lee Schwieger, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Tubbs was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846. Tubbs appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in including the weight of the "bones" in the drug quantity attributed to him. Because bones, a byproduct of the methamphetamine manufacturing process, can be injected by users without separating the methamphetamine, bones constitutes a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1). The district court did not clearly err in including the entire weight of the bones in the drug quantity attributed to Tubbs. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), comment. (n.A); United States v. Ramirez, 271 F.3d 611, 612 (5th Cir.2001).
Tubbs also argues that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of an expert chemist to testify at the sentencing hearing. Tubbs failed to make the necessary showing to obtain appointment of an expert witness. See United States v. Patterson, 724 F.2d 1128, 1130 (5th Cir.1984); see also Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 503 (5th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.