United States v. Mark Caster ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-2422
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Mark Wayne Caster,                       *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 7, 1997
    Filed: December 5, 1997
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Mark Wayne Caster appeals the sentence of 108 months imprisonment and four
    years supervised release imposed on him by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty
    to a drug offense. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    After a confidential informant’s (CI) second purchase of crack cocaine from
    Caster and his co-defendant, Arkansas law enforcement officers executed a warrant at
    the residence where the transactions occurred, seizing an additional quantity of crack
    cocaine from the residence and $1,201 from Caster’s shoe. The money was later
    forfeited as prior drug proceeds in an Arkansas state proceeding pursuant to Ark. Code
    Ann. § 5-64-505(a)(6) (Michie 1993) (all proceeds traceable to exchange for controlled
    substances are subject to forfeiture), and Caster did not contest the money’s forfeiture
    or appeal the forfeiture order. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Caster later
    pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting in possessing crack cocaine with intent to
    distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
    At sentencing, Caster objected to the conversion of the money found in his
    shoe—as prior drug proceeds—into the equivalent amount of cocaine base, which
    raised his quantity of cocaine base by 12 grams. Caster testified that the money came
    from a combination of gambling winnings and Social Security payments, not from drug
    sales. Caster’s co-defendant testified that he and Caster had not made any drug sales
    on the date they were arrested, and that no money had been exchanged during the first
    transaction with the CI the day prior to their arrest. The government entered into
    evidence the state court order of forfeiture. The district court specifically found that
    Caster’s testimony regarding the money was not credible, and concluded that the
    money was properly treated as drug proceeds based on the unappealed order of
    forfeiture. The court sentenced Caster based on a drug quantity that included the
    converted money.
    On appeal, Caster argues the district court’s drug-quantity determination was
    against the weight of the evidence. The district court found Caster’s account of the
    source of the money to be not credible, and we review this finding with great deference.
    See United States v. Adipietro, 
    983 F.2d 1468
    , 1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court’s
    findings as to credibility of witness in making drug-quantity determination are virtually
    unreviewable on appeal). We affirm this finding, and conclude that the district court
    -2-
    did not clearly err in converting the money found on Caster upon his arrest into the
    equivalent quantity of cocaine base, based on the forfeiture order. See U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (1995) (court may approximate quantity
    of controlled substance by considering street price, financial records, or other relevant
    information); United States v. Ortiz-Martinez, 
    1 F.3d 662
    , 675 (8th Cir.) (approving
    extrapolation of drug quantities from amount of seized drug proceeds divided by drug’s
    average price per unit), cert. denied, 
    510 U.S. 936
    (1993).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-2422

Filed Date: 12/5/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015