Opinion ID: 169482
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Drug Quantity Evidentiary Hearing Claim

Text: Regarding his contention the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the contested drug amount, M r. Lucero claims the district court erroneously determined no dispute arose over the amount of drugs involved in his case even though M r. Lucero objected to the factual accuracy of the drug -9- amount used in the presentence report. In support, he refers to M r. Valdez’s statement submitted to the district court 9 but attaches to his appellate brief a typed and notarized affidavit from Mr. Valdez for our review. 10 “W e review the denial of an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253, 1282 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1093 (2006). In this case, M r. Lucero is raising a Booker issue, contending an evidentiary hearing was necessary to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the facts in support of the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes. However, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in United States v. Booker that where, like here, the 9 W hile the undated, unsw orn, and handwritten statement is contained in the record on appeal as an attachment to the presentence report, it is unclear when it was provided to the probation officer. In addition, it is unsworn; was not admitted into evidence or accepted as credible evidence by the district court at the sentencing hearing; and contradicts the evidence obtained by authorities during the investigation and M r. Lucero’s own stipulation on the type of cocaine he purchased from M r. V aldez. 10 W e note M r. Valdez’s “new” typed, sworn affidavit is a document never provided to the district court. Generally, even in a criminal trial, “[t]his court will not consider material outside the record before the district court.” See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000). M oreover, even if w e exercised equitable power to supplement the record on appeal, M r. Valdez’s affidavit, when considered together with evidence obtained by the authorities and M r. Lucero’s own stipulation, leaves us w ith the conclusion the affidavit would not establish beyond any doubt the proper resolution of the pending issue or lead us to believe the interests of justice would best be served by allowing supplementation of the record or remand for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 119293. -10- defendant makes an admission of the relevant facts, no such finding is required. Specifically, it held “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (emphasis added). In this case, M r. Lucero’s guilty plea was supported by a plea agreement in which he explicitly stipulated: 1) he purchased “crack” cocaine from M r. Valdez; and 2) he was accountable for a drug quantity of thirty-five to fifty grams of cocaine base for the purpose of calculating his base offense level. At his change of plea hearing, he continued his stipulation, stating, “I take accountability, Your Honor, for 35 grams or more of crack, between 35 and 50. But I never purchased more than 50 grams, Your Honor.” R., Supp. Vol. 2 at 62. W hile he raised some disagreement over the type of drug he purchased from M r. Valdez, M r. Lucero did not withdraw his stipulation he purchased cocaine base from him or that he was accountable for thirty-five to fifty grams of crack cocaine. Following his change of plea hearing, the record discloses M r. Lucero never filed a formal objection to the drug quantity used in the presentence report. Admittedly, at his sentencing hearing M r. Lucero contended he should be -11- responsible for only twenty to thirty-five grams of cocaine base, as supported by the unsworn, undated and handwritten statement from M r. Valdez. 11 However, he did not pursue the issue and instead indicated he preferred to go forward, both after the district court denied admission of the statement and offered to conduct an evidentiary hearing to accommodate M r. Valdez’s testimony, and again, after it advised M r. Lucero the base offense level w ould stand at 30 if he went forw ard. Based on these circumstances, it is clear the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the drug quantity.