United States v. Rollings , 36 F. App'x 375 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAY 30 2002
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                   No. 00-7088
    (D.C. No. 99-CR-91-S)
    RICHARD ALLEN ROLLINGS,                           (E. D. Oklahoma)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT           *
    Before EBEL , HOLLOWAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
    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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
    I
    Defendant-Appellant Richard Allen Rollings was indicted on six counts
    related to methamphetamine manufacture and distribution, as well as firearms
    possession. He was found guilty on Counts one, two, three and four. Count one
    charged a violation by Defendant Rollings of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    in that on or about May 17, 1999, in Pittsburgh County in the Eastern District of
    Oklahoma, Defendant Rollings knowingly and intentionally attempted to
    manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance.
    Count two charged violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     (a) (1) and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     in
    that on or about May 17 in Pittsburgh County in the Eastern District of Oklahoma,
    Defendant Rollings and Karla Jean Hance, also known as Karla Turpin and Karla
    Rollings, did knowingly and intentionally possess, with intention to distribute,
    methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     (a) (1) and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    .
    Count three charged that on or about May 17, 1999 in Pittsburgh County in
    the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Defendant Rollings and Karla Jean Hance, also
    known as Karla Turpin and Karla Rollings, Defendants herein, having been
    convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,
    possessed in and affecting commerce, various firearms in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
     (g) (1) and (2).
    -2-
    Count four alleged the violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
     (g) (1) and (2) in that
    on or about May 17, 1999 in Pittsburgh County in the Eastern District of
    Oklahoma Defendant Rollings, having been convicted of a crime punishable by
    imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, possessed in and affecting
    commerce, various firearms.
    Counts one through four are the relevant counts of conviction concerning
    which the issues on appeal are asserted. There were two additional counts on
    which Defendant Rollings was found not guilty. On the four counts of conviction
    Defendant Rollings was sentenced respectively to 188 months, 188 months,
    120 months, and 120 months, all to be served concurrently.
    II
    A
    Mr. Rollings raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that because the
    indictment failed to allege a drug quantity, and because the drug quantity was
    estimated by the sentencing judge using a preponderance of the evidence
    standard, his sentence violates the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
    Apprendi v. New Jersey , 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).      Apprendi held that “any fact that
    increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must
    be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
    Id. at 490
    .
    Rollings’ sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum in this case,     see
    -3-
    
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     (b) (1) (C) (maximum sentence for unspecified quantity of
    methamphetamine is 20 years), and therefore        Apprendi does not apply.
    B
    Second, Rollings challenges the judge’s adverse decision on his motion for
    acquittal. “In reviewing . . . a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, this
    court must review the record de novo to determine whether, viewing the evidence
    in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have
    found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”       United
    States v. Wood , 
    207 F.3d 1222
    , 1228 (10th Cir. 2000). From his brief on appeal,
    it appears that the premise of Mr. Rollings’ motion and his argument on appeal is
    that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial that Mr. Rollings attempted
    to manufacture methamphetamine, which Count one charged. App. at 25.
    A sufficiency of the evidence argument almost always requires this court to
    review the record in its entirety. However here, only select portions of the trial
    transcript were introduced, making assessment of the evidence as a whole
    impossible.   See United States v. Vasquez    , 
    985 F.2d 491
    , 495 (10th Cir. 1993)
    (“[T]he failure to file a trial transcript precludes review of a conviction for
    sufficiency of the evidence.”). The Brief of Appellant, p. 7 argues that the
    “evidence at jury trial did not show that an ongoing manufacturing operation was
    present.” However, from what information is available in the partial transcript,
    -4-
    we are satisfied that the prosecution presented ample evidence of Mr. Rollings’
    attempt to manufacture methamphetamine.       1
    1
    The Appellee’s Supplemental Appendix contains portions of the jury trial
    transcript which the Government includes in its Supplemental Appendix. That
    transcript contains testimony by Officer Travis Read. Appellee’s Supplemental
    Appendix 8 et seq . He testified concerning items he seized and submitted to the
    Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.         Id. at 8. Among numerous items, he
    said he submitted two epidermic syringes containing a liquid substance he
    believed to be methamphetamine.         Id. at 11. Later there was testimony describing
    results of examination of material which Officer Read submitted.         Id. at 13.
    It was testified that Officer Read submitted in an envelope, Exhibit 43, a plastic
    bag containing methamphetamine and separate plastic bags containing
    methamphetamine. Id. at 13.
    The examining officer said further that a white powdery substance in bags
    submitted contained methamphetamine.           Id. at 15. Analysis was performed on
    liquid contained in two syringes and methamphetamine was identified within
    those liquids. Id. at 16. Officer Read submitted a ziplock bag, identified as Item
    D-7, and the bag contained a prescription bottle with a moist substance therein
    identified as methamphetamine.        Id. at 17. There was testimony that Defendant
    Rollings was located in a workshop building where camouflage netting was
    found. Id. at 22. The testimony about the seized items showed further a note was
    taken, Exhibit 84, stating “Karla and Richard came by twice. No answer. Call
    you back later tonight.”
    It was testified that from large containers that were taken, two of the jugs
    contained what appeared to be a two layer liquid, something typically encountered
    “in clandestine labs.” Id. at 28. Tests were performed upon the upper layers of
    two exhibits and methamphetamine was identified within both of them.            Id. at 31.
    Later it was testified that the search officers had seen someone inside the mobile
    home running. The search officer then went to the workshop and encountered the
    Defendant Rollings inside.      Id. at 33. Rollings was identified in court as the
    person seen inside the barn.     Id. at 33-34. In both hands the Defendant had
    lithium batteries. Id. at 34. Defendant Rollings’ wallet was found to contain
    $1,371.00. Id. at 35. A security arrangement for the work building or a storage
    building was noticed which was a television monitor on top of a desk which
    showed a view from the top of the barn to the road approaching the barn.          Id.
    at 36-37. Lithium batteries found would have cost between $500 and $600
    (continued...)
    -5-
    We are satisfied from the portions of the record produced that there was
    sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for attempting to
    manufacture methamphetamine. The testimony from the Supplemental Appendix
    which includes substantial trial testimony, satisfies the Government’s burden in
    our judgment.
    C
    Finally, Mr. Rollings contends that the district court erred in denying his
    motion to suppress evidence acquired through the search of his property, arguing
    that the police officer’s probable cause affidavit was marred by material
    omissions and inaccuracies. In particular, he contends that the reliability of the
    1
    (...continued)
    dollars. Id. at 42. Mr. Childers, the supervisor of the laboratory in Durant,
    Oklahoma made an analysis of the samples turned over to him.       Id. at 51.
    The process referred to as the “Nazi method” was that used here for
    manufacturing methamphetamine. This involved the use of lithium metal strips.
    From the officers’ experience in investigating labs, the investigator would see
    lithium batteries, a white powdery substance, and anhydrous ammonia, which was
    seen at this lab site. Id. at 56. There was testimony that three basic items were
    needed to make methamphetamine: sodium metal, a pseudoephedrine or
    ephedrine, and anhydrous ammonia.       Id. at 62. To determine the presence of
    ammonia, a Lumidor gas meter was applied at the Rollings residence.        Id. at
    63-64. The concentration of ammonia found was very high.        Id. at 65. A pickup
    truck at the east door of the shop building was connected to the Defendant by an
    insurance policy found in the vehicle.    Id. at 64-66. The insurance document was
    in the name of Richard A. Rollings and Riley D. Rollings, and the type of vehicle
    and Vehicle I.D. Number were matched also.        Id. at 67-68.
    -6-
    confidential informant (CI) upon whom the officer relied was not established in
    the affidavit.
    In considering whether the affidavit supported probable cause, our task is
    to review the magistrate’s “practical, common-sense decision whether, given all
    the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’
    and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair
    probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
    place.” Illinois v. Gates , 
    462 U.S. 213
    , 238 (1983). We must consider the
    totality-of-the-circumstances in insuring that the magistrate had a “substantial
    basis for . . . concluding” that probable cause existed.     See 
    id. at 238-39
    .
    Here, the CI’s reliability is supported by the CI’s detailed report of prior
    encounters with Mr. Rollings, his detailed predictions of future activity, along
    with the officer’s assertion that he had previously successfully relied on this CI.     2
    See 
    id. at 234
     (the informant’s “explicit and detailed description of alleged
    wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles
    his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case”);        United States v.
    Gonzales , 
    897 F.2d 504
    , 507 (10th Cir. 1990) (sufficient indicia of reliability
    2
    Mr. Rollings offered some evidence purporting to rebut the officer’s
    assertion that he had previously successfully relied on information provided by
    this CI, but we agree with the district court that this evidence was not directly
    responsive to the officer’s claim and therefore was not compelling.
    -7-
    existed where officer stated that CI had given accurate information to DEA in the
    past). We agree with the district court that, while not overwhelming, there was
    sufficient indication that the CI’s reports were reliable, such that the magistrate’s
    determination that probable cause existed was justified.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court, its convictions and
    sentences, are AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    William J. Holloway, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -8-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7088

Citation Numbers: 36 F. App'x 375

Judges: Ebel, Holloway, Murphy

Filed Date: 5/30/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024