United States v. Corley , 439 F. App'x 768 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    October 26, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    No. 11-7013
    v.                                        (D.C. No. 6:97-CR-00039-FHS-1)
    (E.D. Okla.)
    ROBERT ALLEN CORLEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and
    MATHESON, Circuit Judge.
    Robert Allen Corley appeals the sentence imposed following revocation of
    his supervised release. The district court sentenced him to 50 months in prison,
    four months above the range indicated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines
    (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”). Our jurisdiction arises from 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a). We affirm.
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
    collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
    with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    Background
    In 1997, Mr. Corley entered guilty pleas to two counts of a numerous-count
    indictment charging him and others with drug-trafficking and firearms crimes. He
    entered guilty pleas to counts one and two: conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, and money laundering. His
    Guidelines sentencing range was 235 to 293 months. He was sentenced to 168
    months in prison, to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. The
    conditions of his supervised release included prohibitions on possessing a
    controlled substance and possessing a firearm. R. Vol. 1 at 79. After serving 13
    years, he was released from prison and he began his period of supervised release.
    In February 2011, the United States Probation Office sought to revoke
    Mr. Corley’s supervised release, asserting that he had violated the terms of
    supervised release by illegally possessing a controlled substance and a firearm.
    Those proceedings culminated in a final hearing, at which the district court heard
    testimony from three witnesses. One testified, among other things, that he and
    Mr. Corley went from Stidham to Oklahoma City in the spring of 2010, where he
    observed Mr. Corley purchase methamphetamine from a man called “Monday.”
    When they returned to Stidham, Mr. Corley gave the witness a rock of
    methamphetamine, which he smoked. The district court also heard the testimony
    of an agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, showing that Mr. Corley
    -2-
    had been in telephone contact with Monday 40 to 50 times between January and
    June of 2010.
    The district court also heard from Carrie Stachmus, whose testimony forms
    the basis of this appeal. She admitted that she was a regular methamphetamine
    user. She described a trip to Oklahoma City in the late spring or early summer of
    2010 with Mr. Corley and his wife to purchase methamphetamine from her drug
    connection there. She stated that Mr. Corley gave her $4000 to purchase
    methamphetamine, but Mr. Corley rejected it because it “wasn’t quality, it was
    cut,” R. Vol. 2 at 83. According to Ms. Stachmus, Mr. Corley told her to get his
    money back, and when she could not, he and his wife “battered” her, and
    Mr. Corley held a gun to her head. 
    Id. at 89
    . Near the conclusion of her
    testimony, the district court asked Ms. Stachmus when was the last time she had
    used methamphetamine. She responded that she had not used methamphetamine
    since the previous December, two or three months before the hearing. On her
    way out of the courthouse, however, she told a victim-witness assistant that she
    had lied to the judge about how long it had been since she had used
    methamphetamine. This was promptly reported in open court. Defense counsel
    objected to basing the revocation of supervised release on Ms. Stachmus’s
    testimony. The district court then inquired whether the government had made a
    deal with Ms. Stachmus in exchange for her testimony. The prosecutor responded
    that no deal had been made with her, although she was not prosecuted as part of
    -3-
    the broader drug conspiracy, “primarily because she wasn’t a significant enough
    player in any of that for [the government] to be interested in her.” 
    Id. at 146-47
    .
    The prosecutor further reported that state charges were pending against
    Ms. Stachmus but he also had made no deal with the state prosecutor.
    The district court found that Mr. Corley had violated the conditions of his
    supervised release, specifically that he illegally possessed a controlled substance,
    methamphetamine, for the purpose of distribution. The court found Ms. Stachmus
    not credible and therefore dismissed the firearms charge because it was based
    solely on her testimony. The court noted that the other witnesses provided
    sufficient evidence that Mr. Corley had possessed methamphetamine.
    The district court advised Mr. Corley that the Guidelines sentencing range
    for revocation of his supervised release was 37 to 46 months, and that the
    statutory maximum was 60 months on count one (the drug charge) and 24 months
    on count two (the firearms charge) of the original offenses. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3).
    The district court imposed a sentence of 50 months on count one and 24
    months on count two, to run concurrently. In sentencing Mr. Corley, the court
    noted that it had reviewed the applicable statutes and policy statement. The court
    considered the nature and circumstances of Mr. Corley’s conduct, as well has his
    criminal history and characteristics, and determined that the 50-month sentence
    provided just punishment for noncompliance with the terms of his supervised
    -4-
    release, was an adequate deterrent from criminal conduct, and promoted respect
    for the law.
    Mr. Corley appeals the 50-month sentence, contending that Ms. Stachmus’s
    lie about how long it had been since she had used methamphetamine “corrupted
    the evidentiary process.” Aplt. Br. at 23. Accordingly, he argues that the
    sentence is substantively unreasonable.
    Discussion
    Our review of the district court’s application of the relevant factors for
    revoking a term of supervised release and determining the sentence is deferential.
    United States v. McBride, 
    633 F.3d 1229
    , 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2011). We will
    affirm a revocation sentence if it is procedurally and substantively reasonable. 
    Id. at 1232
    . “A sentence in excess of that recommended by the Chapter 7 policy
    statements will be upheld if it can be determined from the record to have been
    reasoned and reasonable.” United States v. Steele, 
    603 F.3d 803
    , 807 (10th Cir.
    2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets omitted). “To say that the
    district court acted reasonably–either procedurally or substantively–is to say that
    it did not abuse its discretion.” McBride, 
    633 F.3d at 1232
    . We will find an
    abuse of discretion only if the sentence imposed is “arbitrary, capricious,
    whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Huckins, 
    529 F.3d 1312
    , 1317 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    -5-
    Mr. Corley does not challenge the revocation of his supervised release, nor
    does he allege that his revocation sentence is procedurally unreasonable. He
    contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
    may have relied on Ms. Stachmus’s testimony in imposing an above-Guidelines
    sentence.
    There is no indication in the record that the district court’s decision to
    impose an above-Guidelines sentence was influenced by Ms. Stachmus’s
    testimony. To the contrary, the record makes clear that the court gave no weight
    to her testimony. The court dismissed the firearms count because it was based
    solely on her statement, and the court specifically noted that the testimony of the
    other witnesses established the controlled-substance violation.
    Moreover, the applicable policy statement supports an above-Guidelines
    sentence. The district court is to consider “the applicable . . . policy statements
    issued by the Sentencing Commission,” when deciding on a reasonable sentence
    for violating a condition of supervised release. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(4)(B).
    “These policy statements . . . represent an expert assessment of appropriate
    sentencing practices, often informed by empirical data regarding actual
    sentencing practices.” McBride, 
    633 F.3d at 1232
    . The applicable policy
    statement was U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, pertaining to imprisonment upon revocation of
    supervised release. Application note 4 to § 7B1.4 provides, “[w]here the original
    sentence was the result of a downward departure . . . an upward departure may be
    -6-
    warranted.” Mr. Corley’s original sentence was the result of downward departure.
    Accordingly, an upward departure was warranted on the revocation sentence.
    Applying our deferential standard of review, and “tak[ing] into account the
    totality of the circumstances, including the extent of [the] variance from the
    Guidelines range,” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007), we determine
    that the sentence above the Guidelines range, but below the statutory maximum, is
    substantively reasonable.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -7-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7013

Citation Numbers: 439 F. App'x 768

Judges: Kelly, Porfilio, Matheson

Filed Date: 10/26/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024