Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Terry Wayne Glenn
Citations: 166 F.3d 1222; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 4993; 1999 WL 2484Docket: 97-5220
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; January 4, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Terry Wayne Glenn, the appellant, pled guilty to various charges related to a conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He contested enhancements to his sentence for possession of a dangerous weapon and obstruction of justice. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentencing court's decisions, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal interpretations de novo. The court upheld the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1), citing reliable witness testimony from a co-defendant's trial, which indicated Glenn's possession of a weapon during drug trafficking. The court found no Sixth Amendment violation regarding confrontation rights, as the reliability of the testimony was supported by Glenn's guilty plea and his own admissions about possessing weapons in connection with drug distribution. Additionally, the prosecution met its burden of proof regarding the weapon's connection to the drug offense, given the proximity of weapons to drugs at Glenn's residence and his guilty plea. The sentencing court's findings were deemed correct, leading to the affirmation of the sentence. The court upheld the enhancement of the appellant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). The appellant contested a two-level sentence increase for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, claiming it was based on clear error regarding the factual findings. Sentencing courts can impose this increase if a defendant willfully obstructs justice during the investigation or prosecution of an offense. The guidelines define obstruction to include attempts to escape custody. The appellant argued that his flight was instinctive and not intended to mislead authorities. However, evidence showed that after his arrest and release on a state bond, he participated in a coordinated effort to evade law enforcement, contradicting his claim. The appellant also contended that the absence of an indictment or subpoena at the time of his flight precluded the application of 3C1.1. The guidelines specify that while certain conduct may not warrant enhancement, a conviction for a related offense, such as conspiracy to flee, allows for the application of 3C1.1. Since the appellant was convicted of conspiracy for his flight, the sentencing court's decision to enhance his offense level was affirmed. The ruling is not binding precedent except under specific doctrines and is generally disfavored for citation.