Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Bridges, 10th Cir. (2000)
United States v. Bridges, 10th Cir. (2000)
JUN 21 2000
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
v.
BOBBY LEE BRIDGES,
Defendant-Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant-appellant Bobby Lee Bridges pled guilty to three counts of
a four-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to manufacture
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
-2-
enhancement; and (2) the sentencing court erred in using count three, endangering
human life while illegally manufacturing a controlled substance, as the most
serious count for grouping pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3D1.2.
United
States v. Keifer , 198 F.3d 798, 801 (10th Cir. 1999). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a), and we affirm.
First, Bridges asserts that, in light of his objection to the presentence report
and at sentencing, the government was required to persuad[e] the district court of
the propriety of increasing his base offense level by three pursuant to U.S.S.G.
2D1.10. Appellants Br. at 9. United States Sentencing Guideline 2D1.10
provides that a defendant convicted of endangering human life while illegally
manufacturing a controlled substance is to receive a base offense level of the
greater of (1) 3 plus the offense level from the Drug Quantity Table in 2D12.1;
-3-
or (2) 20. Bridges states that the guideline is not applicable because the offense
did not result in a fire or other event which endangered human life.
Bridges argument appears to assert that the government had the burden to
prove at sentencing the facts underlying his conviction. In this attempt to forge
a legal challenge into a factual dispute, Bridges misconstrues the law. First, as
the sentencing court noted, 2D1.10 does not require actual harm to human life,
but only that human life be endangered. Second, a defendant is . . . bound at
sentencing by factual allegations that establish an element of the crime which he
has admitted on pleading guilty.
Keifer , 198 F.3d at 800. Bridges guilty plea, however, [was] the
United States v.
Kelsey , 15 F.3d 152, 153 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the government was not
required to produce further evidence proving the conduct underlying the charge
for purposes of increasing his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2D1.10.
-4-
Next, Bridges contends that, because only the ingredients and the
apparatus necessary to potentially manufacture a controlled substance were
discovered at the scene, the endangerment to human life did not occur
while he
while
Id.
United States v.
Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36 (1993); see also United States v. Deninno
29 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that [f]ailure to object to a fact in
a presentence report, or failure to object at the hearing, acts as an admission of
fact and precludes appellate consideration of an issue based on the admitted
fact). 3 Moreover, we note that Bridges plea included an agreement that he would
not oppose the governments recommendation that he be sentenced for an amount
in excess of 100 grams of methamphetaminea quantity which would trigger
the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A).
-6-
endangered the lives of others. He does not challenge the voluntary, knowing,
and intelligent nature of his guilty plea.
at 466; Kelsey , 15 F.3d at 153. Moreover, Bridges pled guilty to the charge that
he manufactured methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).
Even though the amount of methamphetamine is not an element of this crime,
see United States v. Silvers , 84 F.3d 1317, 1320 (10th Cir. 1996), it is clear, and
Bridges does not refute, that in his plea agreement he stipulated to the amount of
methamphetamine attributable to him for sentencing purposes, a fact he did not
object to in the presentence report or at sentencing.
Thus, based on Bridges guilty plea, he was properly sentenced, and his
sentence is AFFIRMED.
-7-