United States v. Myrick ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 13 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-8007
JENNIFER L. MYRICK, (D.C. No. 02-CR-0072-03-J)
(D.Wyo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HENRY, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**
A jury convicted Defendant Jennifer Myrick and her co-defendant, Salvador
Delgado-Uribe, of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846, and (2) possession with intent
to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(A)(2). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
841(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.1 The district court sentenced Myrick to fifty-seven
months imprisonment based upon a final base offense level of twenty-four and a criminal
history category of II under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Myrick appeals her
final sentence.2 We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). We review any factual
determinations involved in the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines
for clear error. See United States v. Espinoza, 338 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir. 2003). We
review the district court’s legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. Id.Applying these standards, we affirm.
I.
The facts of this case are set out in full in the companion case of United States v.
Delgado-Uribe, ___F.3d___, No. 03-8003, ___WL___ (10th Cir. 2004); see Fed. R. App.
P. 3(b)(2). In short, the trial evidence established Myrick and her co-defendant, Salvador
Delgado-Uribe, were involved in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The evidence
indicated Myrick and Delgado were driving a van from California to Illinois. Wyoming
state trooper Jason Green stopped Defendants on March 29, 2002. According to Trooper
1
Decided and filed together with the companion case of United States v. Delgado-
Uribe, ___F.3d___, No. 03-8003, ___WL___ (10th Cir. 2004) (published disposition).
2
Myrick’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw from
her representation of Myrick. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (providing
that when counsel believes her client’s claims are frivolous after a careful examination of
the record, “[s]he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.”); see
also 10th Cir. R. 46.4(B)(1). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED because
Myrick’s claims are meritless.
2
Green, he stopped the van because, among other things, the van was missing a front
license plate. Myrick was arrested for driving without a valid driver’s license. During an
inventory search of the van, law enforcement officers discovered approximately 166.5
pounds of marijuana.
At trial, Myrick denied any involvement with, or knowledge of, the marijuana in
the van. The jury found otherwise. At Myrick’s sentencing hearing, the district court
initially found Myrick’s base offense level was twenty-two under the Sentencing
Guidelines. The court then adjusted Myrick’s base offense level upward two levels for
obstruction of justice during trial. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court found Myrick
repeatedly perjured herself during trial and stated “the story that was presented by
[Myrick] is one that has numerous flaws and inconsistencies in it, all designed to try to
achieve some degree of plausibility.” The district court also assigned Myrick a criminal
history category of II based on a prior expunged conviction for possession of marijuana.
II.
A.
Myrick first argues the district court erred in adjusting her base offense level
upward for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Section 3C1.1 provides:
If (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to
obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of the
investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of
conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant’s
offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (ii) a closely related
offense, increase the offense by 2 levels.
3
The obstruction of justice adjustment applies to a defendant who commits, suborns, or
attempts to suborn perjury. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.4(b)). The adjustment,
however, is not intended to punish defendants who choose to exercise their constitutional
right to testify. Id. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.2). “A defendant’s denial of guilt (other than a
denial of guilt under oath that constitutes perjury), refusal to admit guilt, . . . or refusal to
enter a plea of guilty is not a basis for application of [the] provision.” Id. The Supreme
Court explained a defendant may be subject to the obstruction of justice adjustment due to
perjury when “she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful
intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty
memory.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). If a defendant objects to
the obstruction of justice adjustment at sentencing, the district court should review the
evidence and make independent findings “necessary to establish a willful impediment to
or obstruction of justice.” Id. at 95.
In this case, the district court found Myrick willfully perjured herself at trial,
thereby obstructing justice. The district court thoroughly explained that Myrick’s trial
testimony included numerous inconsistencies regarding the various explanations given to
law enforcement officers about her involvement with the marijuana, the purpose of her
trip to California, and her relationship with Delgado. The court also found Myrick’s
testimony largely unbelievable. For example, the court noted the implausibility of
Myrick’s testimony that she rode in the van from California to Wyoming without
4
knowing the van contained 166.5 pounds of marijuana, especially in light of the fact that
when law enforcement officers opened the van, they were confronted with the
“overwhelming” smell of raw marijuana. Further, commenting on Myrick’s erratic
behavior, the court noted “[a]s a single woman traveling alone and a mother of six
children, [Myrick’s] behavior [was] very unusual.”
After a thorough review of the record, we hold the district court did not err in
finding Myrick perjured herself at trial and willfully obstructed justice. As the district
court found, Myrick testified falsely concerning material matters with the willful intent to
provide false testimony. See Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 94. Myrick denied any knowledge of
the marijuana, yet (1) Myrick rolled her window down only three inches when
approached by Trooper Green, (2) Myrick saw Delgado spray air freshener in the van
throughout their trip, and (3) Myrick’s suitcase was discovered on top of the marijuana.
Further, Myrick’s perjury was “material” because the jury would not have had any basis
on which to convict Myrick if it believed she had no involvement with, or knowledge of,
the marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.6) (“‘[m]aterial’ . . . means evidence,
fact, statement, or information, that if believed, would tend to influence or affect the issue
under determination”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s two level upward
adjustment of Myrick’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
B.
Myrick next argues the district court erred in using a prior expunged conviction for
5
possession with intent to distribute marijuana in calculating her criminal history category.
The Sentencing Guidelines provide “[s]entences for expunged convictions are not
counted” in computing a defendant’s criminal history category. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(j). We
have held, however, a sentencing court “must determine the basis for the expungement or
dismissal of the prior offenses when deciding whether prior convictions should be
included in calculating a defendant’s criminal history category.” United States v. Hines,
133 F.3d 1360, 1363 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A prior
expunged conviction cannot be counted in determining a defendant’s criminal history
category if the expungement was based upon a determination of actual innocence or error
of law. See id. An expunged conviction can be counted, however, if the reason for the
expungement was simply to “restore civil rights or remove the stigma of a criminal
conviction[.]” Id.In this case, the district court explained it counted Myrick’s prior expunged
marijuana conviction in calculating her criminal history category because Myrick did not
present any evidence demonstrating the conviction was expunged because of her
innocence or an error of law. Myrick argues the district court’s findings are inadequate
and a more detailed explanation regarding the basis for the expungement is required.
Although the district court did not elaborate, the pre-sentence investigative report (PSR)
informed the district court that Myrick’s prior conviction was expunged to restore her
civil rights and to remove the social stigma of a criminal conviction. Specifically, the
6
PSR indicated Myrick’s prior marijuana conviction was expunged from her record after
she successfully completed her probation. The effect of the court’s order expunging
Myrick’s prior conviction was therefore to restore her citizenship rights. Thus, the
district court was required to use Myrick’s prior drug conviction in calculating her
criminal history category. See Hines, 133 F.3d at 1363. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s determination to include Myrick’s expunged marijuana conviction in
calculating her criminal history category.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
7