Opinion ID: 778685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James Stoltz

Text: 23 The district court entered judgment against Stoltz on February 1, 2001. The district court determined that Stoltz was accountable for more than 1.5 kilograms but less than 5 kilograms of methamphetamine, supporting a base offense level of 34. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3). The district court further found that Stoltz was an organizer or leader of a criminal enterprise involving more than five persons and applied a four-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(a). As such, Stoltz's total adjusted base offense level amounted to 38, providing a sentencing range between 235 and 294 months imprisonment. The district court sentenced Stoltz to 235 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. 24 Stoltz argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several particulars, including counsel's failure to present jury instructions regarding the defenses of landlord-tenant relationships, threats of co-defendants and unwilling participant. (Stoltz Br. at 12.) He also alleges that his trial counsel operated under a conflict of interest. Most notable among his ineffective assistance claims, however, is Stoltz's charge, supported by an affidavit from his counsel, Mr. Jerrod Smith, that Smith failed to read the presentence investigation report and failed to advise Stoltz regarding sentencing issues. Smith's affidavit is contrary to his statements made during the sentencing hearing at which time he told the district court that he had in fact read the report and discussed it with his client. As a general rule, [w]e will consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal only in exceptional cases where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue or where the result would otherwise be a plain miscarriage of justice. United States v. Brown, 183 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir.1999). This is not such a case. The question of whether or not attorney Smith read the presentence investigation report and advised Stoltz on sentencing issues and whether Stoltz received ineffective assistance of counsel in other regards can best be resolved on collateral review. Accordingly, we decline to address these claims. 25 Stoltz raises numerous other challenges to his conviction and sentence. Stoltz asserts that his indictment was defective under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it did not charge him as a manager or supervisor. He also asserts that his Brady rights were violated when the government failed to provide him with background information concerning a witness. He claims that the district court erroneously refused to give the jury instructions regarding the existence of a buyer-seller relationship and the existence of multiple instead of single conspiracies. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He raises several challenges to his sentence, including claims that the district court abused its discretion in giving Stoltz the maximum allowable sentence, that the district court erroneously determined drug quantity during sentencing, that the district court erred in applying a manager-supervisor adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(b), that the district court failed to give him notice prior to making an upward departure, that he received an unfair sentencing hearing in violation of his due process rights, and that in the totality of the circumstances ... the enhancement was unconstitutional. (Stoltz Br. at 72.) We have, in the exercise of our duty, carefully considered each of the issues Stoltz has raised. We have done so because we recognize that to the parties and counsel involved each allegation of trial court error is important. Fin. Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., Inc., 965 F.2d 591, 596 (8th Cir.1992). This is particularly true in criminal cases. However, as our published Internal Operating Procedures advise, `Except in unusually complicated cases, a brief addressing more than four of five issues is often diffuse and gives the reader the impression that no single issue is very important.' Id. (quoting Internal Operating Procedures at 19). Although the conspiracy was large, in our view, this was neither an unusual nor a complicated case. We have carefully considered the merits of each of Stoltz's arguments and find them to be without merit and unworthy of further discussion.