F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 30 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-7100
(E.D. Okla.)
ROSE BURRIS, (D.Ct. No. 97-CR-22-B)
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
__________________________
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
__________________________
Ms. Burris entered a guilty plea to the crime of maintaining a place for the
distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), and received a
seventy-one month sentence. She appeals the length of her sentence. Her counsel
has filed an Anders brief. 1 We affirm.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Ms. Burris was originally charged with six drug-related counts. She
entered into a written plea agreement, with the result being a dismissal of five
counts and her guilty plea to the count in question.
In Ms. Burris’ presentence report, the probation office concluded her base
offense level was 28 (based upon twenty to thirty-five grams of cocaine base). It
then determined the base level should be reduced by three levels for acceptance of
responsibility, yielding a net offense level of 25. Ms. Burris’ criminal history
score of four yielded a criminal history category of III, which resulted in a
sentencing guideline range of seventy to eighty-seven months.
Ms. Burris filed an objection to the presentence report. The essence of the
objection was that 24.1 grams of the 30.9 grams of cocaine base used to
determine the base offense level should not have been attributed to her, as this
amount was seized from the pocket of a coat she claimed she did not own. The
district court, prior to sentencing, determined a sentence of seventy to seventy-
one months would be appropriate considering Ms. Burris’ conduct. 2
The district
2
The district court, at the sentencing hearing, found as follows:
It should be noted in the record of this hearing that I have reviewed
the presentence report and the objections attached thereto and that I have
determined that a sentence of imprisonment of 70 or 71 months is the
-2-
court then found the ultimate sentence of seventy-one months given to Ms. Burris
would be within the range of punishment permitted under the guidelines even if
the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the presentence report. Counsel,
at the sentencing hearing and in his Anders brief, concluded the objection to the
presentence report was rendered moot because of the district court’s
determination.
If the district court had excluded the 24.1 grams of cocaine base, the base
level would have been based on the remaining 6.8 grams. Under the 1995 edition
of the Guideline Manual, which was the manual used to compute the guideline
range in this case, the base offense level should be 26 if there is at least 5 grams
but less than 20 grams of cocaine base. United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual , § 2D1.1(7) (1995). Assuming the same three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility, this would result in an offense level of 23. With
an offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of III, the sentencing
appropriate total punishment for the conduct underlying the count of
conviction. I make that determination without regard to the drug amount in
dispute and would not decrease the sentence if the guideline range were
lower in this case by excluding the 24.1 grams.
On the basis of that finding, I can see no reason to hear any evidence
with respect to the pending objection....
-3-
guideline range is fifty-seven to seventy-one months. United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual , Sentencing Table (1995). The district court was
correct in its calculations; the sentence falls within both of the potentially
applicable guideline ranges.
Even if we were to reach the question raised by Ms. Burris and rule the
district court erred in its calculation of the amount of cocaine base, we would not
remand for resentencing because the court made it clear the sentence would have
been the same under either of the applicable guideline ranges. See United States
v. Urbanek , 930 F.2d 1512, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991). Like counsel, we can find no
error. Counsel’s request to withdraw in accordance with Anders is granted. The
judgment and sentence of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED .
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-4-