Opinion ID: 155802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement for the Additional 19.24 Ounces

Text: Mr. Jones argues that there was a lack of reliable evidence as to the weight and nature of the substance found within the suitcase. As to the nature of the substance, Officer Wells testified that he field-tested it immediately after it was seized and that it tested positive for crack cocaine. “The government need not introduce scientific evidence to prove the identity of a substance.” United States 5 v. Sanchez DeFundora, 893 F.2d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir. 1990). For sentencing purposes, the positive field test was sufficient evidence for the district court to conclude that the substance was, in fact, cocaine base. As to the weight, the government need only prove the weight of a controlled substance by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Deninno, 29 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1994). In order to establish the weight of the crack cocaine, the government introduced Exhibit 4, an inventory report prepared by the Tulsa Police Department. See Aplt’s App. at B-71. The report contains a list of everything seized from the bag Ms. Hilliard claimed at the airport. The report lists the weight in grams of each crack rock found in the bag. Mr. Jones argues that this report lacks sufficient indicia of reliability because it does not contain a signature. However, sentencing proceedings are not governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d at 1179. The district court found that, on its face, the inventory report was sufficiently reliable and noted that the rule pertaining to authentication of documents was not applicable to the sentencing proceeding. Transcript at B-54. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the suitcase contained 19.24 ounces 1 of crack cocaine. 1 The inventory report listed the weight in terms of grams. The PSR converted the 545.47 grams into 19.24 ounces. See Aplt’s App. at A-4. 6 2. Attribution of the Seized Contraband to Mr. Jones Mr. Jones argues that the district court erred when it attributed to him the crack seized in Ms. Hilliard’s suitcase for sentencing purposes. We disagree. There is ample factual support in the record on which to base a finding that Mr. Jones was involved with Ms. Hilliard’s trafficking activity. Ms. Hilliard stated that Mr. Jones gave her the suitcase and instructed her to take it to Tulsa. Furthermore, there is evidence tending to corroborate Ms. Hilliard’s statement. Mr. Jones was present at the baggage claim area during the interdiction. He conversed with Ms. Hilliard at the airport, and he directed her to claim the suitcase when the carousel started to move. As Ms. Hilliard was waiting to claim the suitcase, she continued to look back at Mr. Jones. When Officer Wells approached Ms. Hilliard, Mr. Jones fled. After he was apprehended, Mr. Jones first denied knowing Ms. Hilliard; however, in the airport security office, he spoke with Ms. Hilliard in a manner that suggested they were more than mere acquaintances. In sum, we conclude that the district court committed no error when it attributed the crack cocaine in Ms. Hilliard’s suitcase to Mr. Jones for sentencing purposes. 7