Opinion ID: 758082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arlie and Daisy Maggard

Text: 8 Arlie and Daisy each contend that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions and that the district court erred in denying their motions for judgments of acquittal. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accept as established all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. United States v. Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d 457, 464 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2063, 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). We will uphold a conviction which is supported by substantial evidence. See United States v. Black Cloud, 101 F.3d 1258, 1263 (8th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but must be sufficient to convince the jury of the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Harrison, 133 F.3d 1084, 1085 (8th Cir.1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 9 Arlie's and Daisy's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence rests largely upon the fact that the most damaging testimony against them is attributable to other participants in the conspiracy or witnesses whose testimony the government secured with plea agreements or immunity deals. Both appellants argue that the government's evidence was limited to what some snitches, who clearly were given a motive in their plea deals to say whatever they could against Daisy and Arlie Maggard, could contrive. Appellant's Br. at 23. Arlie and Daisy attack the testimony of the government's witnesses as uncorroborated and generally unreliable. Due to the identity of the government witnesses, the appellants claim that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence upon which to base their convictions. 10 We find the appellants' challenges unavailing for a number of reasons. In appellants' trial, several witnesses testified to Arlie's and Daisy's role in the distribution and sale of large quantities of methamphetamine. Roger Hilburn testified that Arlie supplied him with one ounce of methamphetamine per day from October, 1994 until Hilburn was arrested in mid-February, 1995. Hilburn testified that Arlie supplied Tim Maggard and Leo Willis with similar quantities of methamphetamine daily. According to Hilburn, Clarence Van Zant also regularly received methamphetamine from Arlie, although less frequently and in smaller quantities than the other conspirators. Regarding Daisy, Hilburn testified that Daisy regularly accompanied her husband when the methamphetamine was distributed and that Daisy kept track of money owed to the Maggards. Hilburn also testified that Daisy was Arlie's partner in the conspiracy and that Daisy had occasionally hidden drugs on her body, presumably in order to avoid detection. 11 Other government witnesses testified that Arlie supplied the methamphetamine eventually sold by Tim Maggard, Roger Hilburn, Leo Willis and Clarence Van Zant. Although the government's witnesses did not discuss Daisy's involvement in the conspiracy to the same extent as Arlie's and Tim's, more than one witness testified that Daisy was Arlie's partner in the distribution and sale of methamphetamine. For example, testimony at trial revealed that Daisy would frequently accompany Arlie when the drugs were distributed. Patty Bristol testified that Daisy had helped Bristol manufacture methamphetamine on occasion. 12 It is well established that it is the sole province of the jury to weigh the credibility of a witness. United States v. Wright, 119 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.1997) (internal citations and quotations omitted). As the trial record makes clear, appellants' counsel cross-examined each witness with whom the government had made plea agreements and attempted to expose the witnesses' potential for bias and self-interest. Appellants' counsel also appropriately attempted to raise questions regarding the credibility of the government's witnesses in closing arguments. The jury's choice to credit the testimony of those witnesses was within its province, and we will uphold the conviction if substantial evidence supports it. See United States v. Bass, 121 F.3d 1218, 1221 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Cabrera, 116 F.3d 1243, 1245 (8th Cir.1997). After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to convince a reasonable juror of appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm Arlie's and Daisy's convictions.
13 Arlie and Daisy also challenge their sentences that the district court imposed, arguing that the court erred in the amount of drugs attributed to them. At appellants' sentencing hearings, the district court found that Arlie and Daisy were each responsible for between 10 and 30 kilograms of methamphetamine. In accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, Arlie received a 360 month sentence, and Daisy received a 235 month sentence for their offenses. 14 The law regarding the government's burden of proof, duties of the sentencing court, and the standard of review concerning the determination of drug quantities and application of the Sentencing Guidelines is well established. The government must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the quantities of drugs attributed to a defendant for sentencing purposes. See Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d at 467. The district court is required to make findings of fact and rule on unresolved objections to the presentence report. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1). A sentencing judge who also presided over the trial, as in this case, may base his factual findings on the trial record and is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to sentencing. See United States v. Wiggins, 104 F.3d 174, 178 (8th Cir.1997). We review a sentencing court's findings of fact regarding the quantity of drugs attributed to defendants for clear error. See United States v. Payne, 119 F.3d 637, 645 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 454, 139 L.Ed.2d 389 (1997). 15 Arlie and Daisy contend that their cases should be remanded for re-sentencing because the sentencing judge failed to specifically rule or estimate the amount of drugs attributable to them. We disagree. 16 Both appellants were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and are therefore responsible for all reasonably foreseeable acts ... of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (Nov.1995) [hereinafter U.S.S.G.]. Testimony at trial demonstrated that appellants were at the center of a large methamphetamine distribution ring. 9 The sentencing judge could properly consider the total amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy in determining the quantity of drugs attributable to these appellants. Furthermore, the Sentencing Guidelines provide that [w]here ... the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (Nov.1995). 17 In appellants' cases, the government admittedly relied upon the testimony of co-conspirators and immunized witnesses to establish the scale of the conspiracy because a relatively small amount of drugs was actually seized by law enforcement agents. Under these circumstances, the sentencing judge's use of witnesses' testimony to establish drug amounts was proper, see United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722, 736 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1379, 140 L.Ed.2d 525 (1998). Although a more detailed record addressing trial testimony and specific amounts would have been preferable, 10 we cannot say that the attribution to appellants of 10 to 30 kilograms of methamphetamine was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence nor that the district court clearly erred when using this amount to determine appellants' sentences. 18 Arlie Maggard further argues that the district court erred in calculating his offense level. We review the sentencing court's factual determinations for clear error while its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines are subject to de novo review. See United States v. Larson, 110 F.3d 620, 627 (8th Cir.1997). The district court adjusted Arlie's offense level of 36, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (Nov.1995), upward four points for his role as a leader/organizer of the conspiracy, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and two points for obstruction of justice, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. These enhancements gave Arlie a total offense level of 42, which carries a sentencing range of 360 months to life. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A. In response to Arlie's contentions, the government correctly notes that the sentence imposed upon Arlie would be the same regardless of the enhancements of which Arlie complains. As a career offender, 11 Arlie's offense level is 37 12 and his criminal history category is VI. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, the appropriate sentencing range for Arlie's convictions would be 360 months to life. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A. (Nov.1995). As our independent review of the record convinces us that the sentence imposed was proper, we need not reach the issue of whether the district court erred in adjusting Arlie's offense level upward. 19 Lastly, Arlie asserts that the district court erred in failing to make a finding as to whether l- or d- methamphetamine was involved in the conspiracy. Prior to November 1, 1995, the Sentencing Guidelines distinguished between the two types of methamphetamine and mandated harsher sentences for offenses involving d-methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10) (Nov.1994). The distinction between l- and d- methamphetamine was eliminated by Amendment 518, which became effective on November 1, 1995. See U.S.S.G.App. C (Nov.1997). Some offenses, such as conspiracy, are 'continuing offenses' for which the completion date controls which version of the Sentencing Guidelines should apply. United States v. Reetz, 18 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). The conspiracy of which Arlie was convicted occurred between October, 1994 and July 11, 1996. Therefore, the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to Arlie are those in effect on July 11, 1996. Therefore, the district court's alleged failure to make a finding as to the type of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy is not error because such a finding was unnecessary under the November, 1995 guidelines.