Opinion ID: 582735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Did the Trial Court Properly Sentence Appellant Under

Text: 76 the Sentencing Guidelines? 77 Appellant finally charges that the district court misapplied the federal sentencing guidelines in imposing his sentence. Specifically, appellant contends that the district court erred in sentencing him for bringing into Utah in excess of five kilograms of cocaine to sell or distribute. Appellant's Brief at 53. He further contends that he was wrongly sentenced as an organizer and leader. Id. at 54. Lastly, appellant asserts that the district court wrongly applied the sentencing guidelines criminal history calculus. We find that the sentence imposed by the district court was appropriate. 78 In the first place, we note that a sentencing court may look beyond the charges alleged in the indictment in imposing a sentencing. United States v. Smith, 929 F.2d 1453, 1459 (10th Cir.) ([Q]uantities and types of drugs not specified in the charge with which defendant stands convicted are to be included in determining the base offense level 'if they were part of the same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count of conviction.' ) (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 146, 116 L.Ed.2d 112 (1991). In this case, the evidence presented at trial adequately supported the trial court's finding that appellant had brought more than five kilograms of cocaine into Utah as part of the overall conspiracy. See R.Vol. IV at 68, Testimony of Alvarez. The evidence of appellant's role as an organizer and leader was also sufficiently established at trial. See R.Vol. IV at 52-56; R.Vol. III at 125-26. Appellant's final assertion, that it was error for the court to consider his Mississippi conviction in determining his criminal history level since that conviction occurred after the commission of Utah crimes, is incorrect as a matter of law. In fact, the Tenth Circuit considered this very issue in United States v. Fortenbury, 917 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir.1990), and concluded that subsequent criminal conduct occurring before sentencing for an earlier offense is a permissible basis for departing upward by criminal history category. Moreover, because appellant failed to designate the record on sentencing, we cannot evaluate the district court's consideration of criminal history in any further detail. We therefore affirm the district court's sentence as to these particular issues.