United States v. Tubbs , 96 F. App'x 257 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 12, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51163
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL EDWARD TUBBS, also known as Michael Tubbs,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-03-CR-69-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Tubbs was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
Tubbs appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court
clearly erred in including the weight of the “bones” in the drug
quantity attributed to him. Because bones, a byproduct of the
methamphetamine manufacturing process, can be injected by users
without separating the methamphetamine, bones constitutes a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-51163
-2-
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1). The district court did not
clearly err in including the entire weight of the bones in the
drug quantity attributed to Tubbs. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c),
comment. (n.A); United States v. Ramirez, 271 F.3d 611, 612 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Tubbs also argues that the district court erred in denying
his request for appointment of an expert chemist to testify at
the sentencing hearing. Tubbs failed to make the necessary
showing to obtain appointment of an expert witness. See United
States v. Patterson, 724 F.2d 1128, 1130 (5th Cir. 1984); see
also Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 503 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.