United States v. Randy Woods

20 F. App'x 588
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 10, 2001
Docket00-3911
StatusUnpublished

This text of 20 F. App'x 588 (United States v. Randy Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Randy Woods, 20 F. App'x 588 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

*589 PER CURIAM.

Randy L. Woods pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Overruling his drug-quantity objection, the district court 1 sentenced Woods to 92 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release. Woods renews his drug-quantity argument on appeal.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining Woods’s drug quantity. See United States v. Milton, 153 F.3d 891, 898 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review), cert, denied, 525 U.S. 1165, 119 S.Ct. 1082, 143 L.Ed.2d 83 (1999). The court properly relied on expert evidence, see United States v. Hunt, 171 F.3d 1192, 1196 (8th Cir.1999), and properly estimated the capacity of Woods’s laboratory based on an amount of precursor chemicals, see United States v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 427, 429 n. 5 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam). The court was entitled to believe the defense expert’s testimony that Woods’s laboratory could have theoretically produced the drug quantity urged by the government, while disbelieving the expert’s testimony about the unlikelihood that a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory would have been able to do so. See United States v. Moore, 212 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir.2000).

We decline to consider Woods’s argument that the purity of a small quantity of methamphetamine seized from the laboratory should be used to estimate the laboratory’s capacity because he presents it for file first time on appeal. See Tarsney v. O’Keefe, 225 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir.2000), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 1364, 149 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 F. App'x 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-randy-woods-ca8-2001.