United States v. Mann

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 18 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-5018
STEVEN LYNN MANN, (D.C. No. 01-CR-18-C)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Steven Lynn Mann appeals his conviction and life sentence, arguing the
district court erred by (1) not suppressing evidence arising out of three searches; (2)
admitting into evidence a videotape showing him manufacturing methamphetamine and
exchanging methamphetamine for sex; (3) permitting a Drug Enforcement Agency agent
to extrapolate the total amount of methamphetamine Mann could have manufactured
based solely on witnesses’ testimony about pseudoephedrine sold to Mann; (4) failing to
remedy the Government’s pretrial misrepresentation that it had offered no promises or
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
inducements to Government witnesses; and (5) sentencing Mann to a disproportionate
sentence as compared to his co-conspirators. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.
The parties to this case are familiar with its facts and procedural history, and we
will not repeat them here. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress, we accept the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United
States v. Price, 265 F.3d 1097, 1104 (10th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal
question of whether the officers conducting the searches complied with the Fourth
Amendment. Id. We review the trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence,
including expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Velarde, 214
F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony); United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d
1241, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998) (evidence generally). We review de novo a claim that the
Government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. United States v. Molina, 75 F.3d
600, 602 (10th Cir. 1996). We review for an abuse of discretion Mann’s claim the district
court sentenced him to a disparately harsh sentence. United States v. Allen, 24 F.3d
1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 1994). After reviewing the record and the briefs, and hearing oral
2
argument, we find no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3