United States v. Norwood , 259 F. App'x 157 ( 2007 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 26, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-6143
v. (W. D. Oklahoma)
MICHAEL DWIGHT NORWOOD, (D.C. No. CR-06-180-1-F)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Dwight Norwood entered a plea of guilty in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to three counts of distribution
of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The methamphetamine counts
were based on three controlled buys involving Mr. Norwood. The felon-in-
possession count was based on a firearm found in his residence. The district
*
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(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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment each on two distribution
counts, life imprisonment on the third distribution count, and 120 months’
imprisonment on the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm count. Mr. Norwood
appeals, arguing that the court based his sentences on testimony that lacked
sufficient indicia of reliability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirm.
At the sentencing hearing, the government called ten witnesses, including
an FBI agent, a former police detective, and eight former associates of
Mr. Norwood’s. Mr. Norwood’s sole claim on appeal is that the district court
should not have credited the testimony of five of his former associates. He points
to their criminal pasts, including their drug use, and asserts that they could not be
believed. But each testified under oath in the presence of the court and was
subject to cross-examination.
We give the district court “great deference” when it makes findings based
on the credibility of witnesses. Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978, 985 (10th Cir.
1996). “‘[O]nly the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and
tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in
what is said.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S.
564, 575 (1985)). Even when the witnesses gave inconsistent testimony and had
been involved in criminal activity, we will not reverse a jury’s determination that
a witness was credible unless the testimony “is unbelievable on its face, i.e.,
-2-
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.” United States v.
Mendez-Zamora, 296 F.3d 1013, 1018 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted).
We therefore AFFIRM Mr. Norwood’s sentence.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-