Opinion ID: 167775
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: April 23 and 24, 2003.

Text: The district court found that Thornton was responsible for 4.5 ounces of crack stemming from a series of telephones calls occurring over this two-day 16 (...continued) United States v. Dalton, 409 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir. 2005). And in making those sentencing findings, the district court is not bound by the jury’s acquittal verdict, made under “the more onerous reasonable doubt standard.” United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886, 920 (10th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. M agallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 683-85 (10th Cir.) (applying United States v. W atts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), post-Booker), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 468 (2005). - 18 - period of time. According to Brown, these telephone conversations focused on Thornton’s attempts to purchase, for someone else, nine ounces of crack, a much larger amount than Brown had ever before sold Thornton. Brown told Thornton he did not have that much readily available, but to check back with him later. Brown was eventually able to acquire nine ounces of crack, but was only willing to sell Thornton half of that amount, or 4.5 grams. Ultimately, Thornton bought only his usual one-quarter ounce. The district court, nevertheless, found that Thornton was responsible for 4.5 ounces of crack. Once again, however, this amount is based only upon Brow n’s testimony, which the jury may have found to be incredible generally. In addition, Brown testified that he had previously told police he had never sold Thornton any amount of crack larger than a quarter ounce at any one time. Even assuming this deal was originally for nine, and then later 4.5 ounces, of crack, and although the substance of the conversations indicates it was actually Brown who was having trouble finding enough crack to conduct this transaction, the evidence is disputed as to whether Thornton himself could have actually conducted this transaction. According to Brow n, Thornton had never before purchased this much crack. And when Brown eventually offered to sell Thornton at least 4.5 ounces, Thornton backed down and just bought what Brown characterized as Thornton’s usual amount–one-quarter ounce. Further, although Thornton told Brow n that he intended to show this quarter ounce to his customers - 19 - to determine if they were still interested in buying more, there is no indication that Thornton ever tried to conduct or broker a later sale. Again, based upon the equivocal nature of this evidence, the Government cannot show that a jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Thornton was responsible for 4.5 ounces of crack stemming from this two-day transaction.