Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Arturo Brazier, A/K/A Arturo Gooding, 149 F.3d 1191, 10th Cir. (1998)
United States v. Arturo Brazier, A/K/A Arturo Gooding, 149 F.3d 1191, 10th Cir. (1998)
3d 1191
98 CJ C.A.R. 2991
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
After examining Appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
After his conviction was affirmed, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, contending that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Appellant's petition alleges that both his trial
counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective because they did
not raise the issue of whether the government proved that his crimes involved
crack cocaine. Appellant contends that his counsels' failure to raise this issue
prejudiced him by subjecting him to the harsher sentence imposed upon those
convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine. The district court denied the
section 2255 motion. See United States v. Brazier, Nos. 93-40003-08-SAC &
97-3186-SAC, 1997 WL 833293, at * 7 (D.Kan. Dec.11, 1997). The district
court also denied Appellant a certificate of appealability. See United States v.
Brazier, Nos. 93-40003-08-SAC & 97-3186-SAC, 1998 WL 80367 (D.Kan.
Jan.5, 1998). Appellant asks this court to grant him a certificate of appealability
and to reverse the decision of the district court dismissing his section 2255
motion.
Appellant attempts to prove his claims by stating that "[n]o drugs [were] ever
produced to corroborate" the allegation that his crime involved crack cocaine.
Appellant's Br. at 10. It is not necessary for the government to produce the
drugs involved in the alleged crimes at trial or at sentencing in order to obtain a
conviction or enhance a sentence. See United States v. Cantley, 130 F.3d 1371,
1379 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1098, 140 L.Ed.2d
153 (1998); United States v. Silvers, 84 F.3d 1317, 1327 (10th Cir.1996), cert.
denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 742, 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997). Contrary to
Appellant's assertions, it is not necessary for a chemist or scientist to testify at
trial in order to establish the type of drug involved. See United States v.
Sanchez DeFundora, 893 F.2d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir.) (affirming the principle
that lay testimony and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for a jury to
find "that a substance was identified beyond a reasonable doubt"), cert. denied,
495 U.S. 939, 110 S.Ct. 2190, 109 L.Ed.2d 518 (1990). Additionally, Appellant
offers no evidence to prove that the drug at issue was not crack cocaine but
some other form of cocaine. See Cantley, 130 F.3d at 1379 ("Finally, though
we recognize the burden is on the government to prove the substances were
crack cocaine, [defendant] has presented no evidence whatsoever to show that
the substances were not crack cocaine.").
7
When determining a defendant's sentence, the trial court may rely on any
testimony which has a "sufficient indicia of reliability." United States v.
Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1179-80 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038, 110
S.Ct. 3302, 111 L.Ed.2d 811 (1990). At the sentencing hearing, the government
introduced a statement by Appellant that he provided 500 grams of crack
cocaine to a co-conspirator. See Brazier, 1996 WL 218605, at ----5 & n. 6.
Although this statement was offered to impeach Appellant's credibility, it was
sufficient for the trial court to have properly found that the drugs involved were
crack cocaine. The trial court also reasonably relied on trial testimony
identifying the drug at issue as crack cocaine, testimony which this court
discussed in its review of Appellant's challenge, on direct criminal appeal, to
the quantity of drugs at issue. See id. at * 4; United States v. Hooks, 65 F.3d
850, 854 (10th Cir.1995) ("In essence, Defendant requests we reverse the
district court because [the witness] was not a believable witness. This we will
not do."), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1083, 116 S.Ct. 797, 133 L.Ed.2d 745 (1996).
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
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