Opinion ID: 553755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: thomas thompson

Text: 2 Thomas Thompson was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. On appeal he asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the district court erred in applying the sentencing guidelines. 3 Thomas Thompson contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a separate trial despite exculpatory statements made by co-defendant Moon. No claim of ineffective counsel was presented to the district court. Accordingly, defendant's argument is precluded by our decision in United States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1081 (6th Cir.1989), in which we stated that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can not be raised for the first time on appeal. 4 Thomas Thompson also raises claims challenging the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines. Specifically, Thomas Thompson argues that the district court erred in placing him in Criminal History II category and in not finding him to be a minor participant under Guideline Sec. 3B1.2. Thompson notes that at the bond hearing the district court itself had stated: 5 category two is simply wrong. That criminal history category should have been one, and that the Defendant was entitled to a four point credit for a minimal, as a minimal participant as I reflect and look back on the offense, I'm sorry, should have been a minus as I look back at the totality of the proofs at trial that I should have applied Guideline Sec. 3(b)1.2(b). 6 Because the record before us is barren as to any findings by the district court at the sentencing stage, which must show by clear and convincing evidence what facts were necessary to establish the criminal history category applied, we are in no position to review the sentence imposed for errors of law. Obviously, from the transcript provided after oral argument by the United States, everyone was confused as to precisely what had taken place when the pre-sentence report was being considered. Therefore, to insure no improper application of the guidelines has occurred, the sentence of Thomas Thompson is vacated and remanded pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 35(a).