U.S. v. Cockerham

• Decision Date: 29 November 1993
• Citation: 108 F.3d 1388
• Parties: 97 CJ C.A.R. 458 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1388

108 F.3d 1388

97 CJ C.A.R. 458

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Tommy Don COCKERHAM, also known as Tommy Cockerham, also known as Tommy Don, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 96-7050

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 25, 1997.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ^*

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Cockerham appeals from an order of the district court sentencing him following defendant's plea of guilty to Counts I, III, and IV of a multi-count indictment charging defendant with violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 924(c). Defendant appeals his sentence alleging that the trial court erred when the money which was found during a search of the defendant's residence and surrounding premises was converted into an approximate drug quantity and resulted in an increase in defendant's sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant's attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and moved to withdraw as defendant's counsel. We affirm.

Defendant appeals on the ground that the district court erred in converting $85,355 which was found in cash in or near defendant's premises to an estimated drug quantity that would be attributable to drug sales of the methamphetamine and other controlled substances with which defendant was charged in the indictment. We review for clear error. U.S. v. Ortiz, 993 F.3d 204, 207 (10th Cir.1993). The record in this case makes clear that the district court reviewed carefully the presentence report and all of the evidence in this case and determined by a preponderance of evidence that the $85,355 recovered by law enforcement authorities incident to defendant's arrest was derived from the illicit sale of controlled substances and was a part of the same course of conduct as the conduct...