United States v. Ledbetter ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 27 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-7016
v. (D.C. No. CR-95-43-B)
(E.D. Okla.)
JAMES R. LEDBETTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Defendant James R. Ledbetter, called “Randy,” was convicted by a jury on
one count of drug trafficking and two firearms offenses. 1 He appeals from the
sentence imposed on the trafficking charge, arguing that a large quantity of drugs
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited
under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1
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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
should have been excluded from consideration. We exercise jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), and affirm.
Defendant’s sentence on the trafficking charge was based on 42.23 grams
of methamphetamine seized from his car during a traffic stop, and 73.16 grams of
methamphetamine found in his mother’s garage in a locked matchbox inscribed
with the name “Randy.” Defendant was not present when officers searched his
mother’s garage and did not consent to their search of the locked matchbox.
Relying on United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1992), he
argues that his mother’s consent to search her garage did not extend to a locked
box bearing his name. He contends that the 73.16 grams of methamphetamine
found in the matchbox should be excluded from the total used to calculate his
sentence on the trafficking charge, and his sentence reduced accordingly.
We conclude that Salinas-Cano--a case challenging a conviction--does not
apply to the sentencing argument defendant seeks to raise here. See 959 F.2d at862 & n.1. “This circuit has followed the approach of balancing the effect of
applying the exclusionary rule at sentencing against the costs of impairing
effective and suitable punishment of proven offenders and unduly complicating
sentencing procedures.” United States v. Jessup, 966 F.2d 1354, 1356 (10th Cir.
1992) (footnote omitted) (sentencing guidelines case, citing United States v.
Graves, 785 F.2d 870, 873 (10th Cir. 1986) (pre-sentencing guidelines case)). We
-2-
have observed that unless a defendant shows that illegally obtained evidence was
procured by arresting officers in an attempt to enhance his sentence, applying the
exclusionary rule would not achieve any deterrent effect on illegal searches to
outweigh the detrimental effect on the court’s ability to determine an appropriate
sentence caused by excluding the evidence. See id. at 1356-57. In the absence of
any such showing by defendant in this case, the 73.16 grams of methamphetamine
recovered from the matchbox would be relevant at sentencing even if the search
of the matchbox were held to be illegal.
Defendant makes no such showing on appeal, and there is no indication in
his materials that he made this argument in the district court at all. On our review
of the record, we find no plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725(1993).
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-