United States v. Autem , 71 F. App'x 804 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 7 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-3059
(D. Kan.)
JOHN W. AUTEM, (D.Ct. No. 00-CR-40087-RDR)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
James A. Brown (Eric F. Melgren, United States Attorney, with him on the brief),
Assistant United States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas M. Barlow, Beaumont, Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and
OBERDORFER, ** District Court Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
**
The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior United States District Judge for the
District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
John Autem appeals his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine, attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(c), 846; 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues
“the evidence is insufficient to support each of the convictions.” We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions.
I. Facts
Based on information from a confidential informant, the Labette County
Sheriff’s Department suspected there was a methamphetamine laboratory on Mr.
Autem’s property. Law enforcement officers searched Mr. Autem’s property on
two separate occasions and found numerous items associated with
methamphetamine manufacturing. The officers also found marijuana. Although
the officers initially arrested only Mr. Autem’s daughter, they soon after arrested
her boyfriend, Shane Beery. Mr. Beery indicated Mr. Autem was involved in the
methamphetamine manufacturing. Officers subsequently arrested Mr. Autem.
Mr. Autem’s daughter entered into a plea agreement with the government
and pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Mr. Beery also entered into a plea
agreement and pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. In
-2-
exchange for Mr. Beery’s testimony against Mr. Autem and other “substantial
assistance,” the government agreed to dismiss some of the charges against him, to
not bring any additional charges against him, and to recommend he receive a
lighter sentence. Mr. Autem denied any involvement in the methamphetamine
manufacturing and entered a not guilty plea.
At trial, Mr. Beery testified he met Mr. Autem at Mr. Autem’s home and
discussed a “more efficient way of manufacturing” methamphetamine using
anhydrous ammonia. Mr. Autem wanted to learn this new method. Mr. Autem
therefore agreed to supply Mr. Beery with “anhydrous [ammonia] to make more
methamphetamines” in exchange for Mr. Beery’s instruction on “how to
manufacture methamphetamines with anhydrous ammonia.” Mr. Autem indicated
he could get the anhydrous ammonia “because he owned a farm.” He also
indicated he could get other supplies like pseudoephedrine from a veterinary
supply catalog.
A few weeks later, Mr. Beery manufactured four quarts of
methamphetamine oil in a metal outbuilding behind Mr. Autem’s home, enough to
produce approximately two ounces of methamphetamine. He used materials both
he and Mr. Autem provided. Mr. Autem arrived home from work and was present
-3-
during the crucial stages of the manufacturing process. Mr. Autem indicated he
wanted the methamphetamine left as oil because “[h]e knew how to do the last
process” of “powder[ing] it out.” Prior to Mr. Beery’s departure, he and Mr.
Autem split the methamphetamine oil between themselves, each taking two jars.
Mr. Beery left a propane tank in the outbuilding for Mr. Autem to fill with
anhydrous ammonia according to their agreement.
The government introduced several items of physical evidence it found in
Mr. Autem’s outbuilding. The government found several precursors, reagents,
solvents, and other supplies used in methamphetamine manufacturing. One such
item was a propane tank that contained anhydrous ammonia. In addition, the
government found some items containing traces of methamphetamine, including a
jar of methamphetamine oil.
The government also introduced as evidence items it found in Mr. Autem’s
home. The government found books describing how to manufacture
methamphetamine; veterinary supply catalogs selling substances used in
methamphetamine manufacturing; a catalog selling chemistry laboratory
equipment similar to items found in the outbuilding; a receipt for
pseudoephedrine from a veterinary supply company dated approximately two
-4-
weeks before the alleged manufacturing; 1 and a list in Mr. Autem’s handwriting
of chemical names and equipment commonly used in methamphetamine
manufacturing.
Finally, to “show knowledge, absence of mistake, et cetera,” the
government introduced evidence that Mr. Autem had a previous conviction for
possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell. During the investigation of
Mr. Autem at that time, the government found recipes for manufacturing
methamphetamine at his home.
After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Mr. Autem of (1) conspiracy to
manufacture more than fifty grams of methamphetamine; (2) attempt to
manufacture more than fifty grams of methamphetamine; and (3) possession of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and
with reasonable cause to believe the chemicals will be used to manufacture
methamphetamine. Mr. Autem appeals.
1
The receipt was in Mr. Autem’s wife’s name, but she testified she did not place
the order.
-5-
II. Discussion
On appeal, Mr. Autem argues “the evidence was wholly insufficient to
support the convictions of each of the counts.” We review de novo the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting Mr. Autem’s convictions, viewing “the
evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
jury verdicts.” United States v. Higgins, 282 F.3d 1261, 1274 (10th Cir. 2002).
We will affirm the convictions “if a reasonable jury could find the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” based on the evidence and the inferences drawn
therefrom. United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Mr. Autem first argues “the government relie[d] almost exclusively upon
the suspect and controverted testimony of [Mr.] Beery, [which] was insufficiently
corroborated to support the convictions.” He believes that “absent the testimony
of [Mr. Beery], there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Autem participated in any
manner in a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, any attempt to possess
or manufacture methamphetamine, or any possession of precursor materials with
the intent that they be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.”
We have repeatedly held a jury “may convict a defendant solely on the
-6-
basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” United States v. Smith,
131 F.3d 1392, 1399 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1141 (1998). See,
e.g., United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1284 (10th Cir.) (“We will not reverse a
conviction merely because the verdict was grounded on the uncorroborated
testimony of a coconspirator.”), cert denied, 519 U.S. 901 (1996). “Furthermore,
the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury, and on appeal we must resolve
credibility issues in the jury’s favor unless the testimony is ‘inherently
incredible.’” Smith, 131 F.3d at 1399 (quoting Tapia v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 1554,
1562 (10th Cir. 1991)). Witness testimony is inherently incredible only if it is
“‘unbelievable on its face, i.e., testimony as to facts that [the witness] physically
could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the
laws of nature.’” Tapia, 926 F.2d. at 1562 (quoting United States v. Garner, 581
F.2d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 1978)).
Under these principles, we reject as a matter of law Mr. Autem’s argument
the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because Mr. Beery’s
testimony was uncorroborated, unreliable, and “controverted.” See Smith, 131
F.3d at 1399. Mr. Autem has not suggested Mr. Beery’s testimony is “inherently
incredible.” And, after reviewing the record, we are satisfied his “testimony was
well within the range which a rational jury could believe.” Id. We therefore
-7-
“resolve [the] credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict.” Id.Mr. Autem next argues the evidence is insufficient to support his
conspiracy conviction because “Mr. Autem’s relationship with [Mr.] Beery was
practically non-existent, and the relationship with his daughter is not a sufficient
link to establish a conspiracy through her.” He also claims this “one-time isolated
event” is insufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude the
evidence is sufficient to support Mr. Autem’s conviction of conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine. While we agree with Mr. Autem that his “mere
presence at the scene of the crime or association with [his daughter or Mr. Beery]
is not enough to support a conspiracy conviction,” United States v. Espinosa, 771
F.2d 1382, 1392 (10th Cir. 1985), the evidence in the record demonstrates he
agreed with Mr. Beery to manufacture methamphetamine and actively participated
in achieving this objective.
In addition, we do not believe it significant under the facts of this case that
the manufacturing may have been a “one-time isolated event.” The government
was not trying to link Mr. Autem’s conduct to a larger conspiracy, as in the cases
-8-
Mr. Autem cites in support of his argument. See United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d
663 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. McIntyre, 836 F.2d 467 (10th Cir. 1987).
Instead, the government merely alleged his conduct as evidence of a conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine on one particular occasion. The government did
not need to prove Mr. Autem engaged in further illegal conduct to support its
charge that Mr. Autem conspired to manufacture methamphetamine on this
particular occasion. See, e.g., United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1471
(10th Cir. 1991) (“The core of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an
unlawful act.” (emphasis added).). After reviewing the record, we conclude there
is sufficient evidence to support Mr. Autem’s conspiracy conviction.
Mr. Autem next argues the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of
precursor chemicals because Mr. Beery’s testimony raised only “a suspicion,
albeit a questionable one, of Mr. Autem’s involvement.” He also claims the
evidence is insufficient to show he had “the requisite intent” or “guilty mens rea.”
We reject these arguments. After reviewing the record in its entirety, some of
which we discussed above, we conclude “a reasonable jury could find [Mr.
Autem] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” of attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine and possession of precursor chemicals. Wilson, 107 F.3d at
-9-
778.
III. Conclusion
In sum, we conclude there is sufficient evidence supporting Mr. Autem’s
convictions. We therefore AFFIRM all three convictions.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-10-