United States v. Tyrone Davis , 389 F. App'x 616 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 22 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-30292
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:04-cr-05350-RBL-2
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    TYRONE DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 14, 2010
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HART, Senior District
    Judge.**
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable William Hart, Senior United States District Judge for
    the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    Tyrone Davis appeals the 18-year sentence imposed by the district court
    following his guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, distribution of
    cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. We affirm.
    I
    Davis concedes that United States v. Grissom, 
    525 F.3d 691
     (9th Cir. 2008),
    forecloses his argument that the district court erred in calculating his base offense
    level at resentencing. See 
    id.
     at 697 n.3.
    II
    Assuming that breach of the plea agreement is preserved as an issue for
    appeal, we see no reversible error in the government’s presenting evidence of the
    nature and extent of Davis’s drug activities in support of the plea agreement’s
    recommended sentence. The government offered the evidence to counter Davis’s
    argument for a lower sentence based on the disparity between crack and cocaine,
    and to show that an enhancement for being a manager/supervisor was warranted.
    No attempt was made to influence the court to impose a greater sentence. See
    United States v. Allen, 
    434 F.3d 1166
    , 1175 (9th Cir. 2006).
    2
    III
    Evidence supports the three-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 3B1.1(b) for being a manager or supervisor of the Seven Deuce Mob’s drug
    operation. The district court is not required to make specific findings of fact for an
    upward adjustment, United States v. Govan, 
    152 F.3d 1088
    , 1096 (9th Cir. 1998),
    but among other things, Agent Ringer’s testimony showed that Davis controlled
    the source of supply, who was allowed to be there when suppliers were present,
    and prices; supervised cooking and decided where sales could be made; and was
    the one to whom other members of the Seven Deuce Mob turned for help when
    they were in trouble. Davis basically took over his brother’s leadership role when
    his brother was incarcerated. These facts support a finding that Davis was a
    manager of the enterprise. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 
    234 F.3d 483
    ,
    491 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Egge, 
    223 F.3d 1128
    , 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).
    IV
    District courts are directed to “‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater
    than necessary’ to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the
    law, and provide just punishment . . . . ” United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 991
    (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)). Although we do not
    3
    “presume on appeal that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable,” id.
    at 993, “a Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable, because it reflects both
    the Commission’s and the sentencing court’s judgment as to what is an appropriate
    sentence for a given offender,” Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 351 (2007).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18-year (216
    month) sentence recommended by the plea agreement – and within the advisory
    Guidelines range of 188-235 months – was appropriate.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30292

Citation Numbers: 389 F. App'x 616

Judges: Rymer, Smith, Hart

Filed Date: 7/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024