United States v. Dwite Hall ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                          United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-1071
    ___________
    United States of America,   *
    *
    Appellee,          *
    *
    v.                      *
    Appeal from the United States
    *
    District Court for the
    Dwite Valentine Hall,       *
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Appellant.         *
    [Unpublished]
    __________
    Submitted: July 29, 1997
    Filed: August 7, 1997
    __________
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    __________
    PER CURIAM.
    Dwite Hall challenges the 135-month sentence imposed
    by the district court1 following his guilty plea to
    attempting to possess cocaine base and marijuana with
    intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    Hall argues that the district court improperly
    sentenced him for possessing cocaine base, because the
    government failed to prove the cocaine base seized from
    Hall
    -2-
    at the time of his arrest was crack cocaine. See U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c), (n.(D)) (1995)
    (defining “cocaine base” as “crack,” which in turn is
    defined as “the street name for a form of cocaine base,
    usually prepared by processing cocaine hydrochloride and
    sodium bicarbonate, and usually appearing in a lumpy,
    rocklike form”); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual App.
    C. amend. 487 (Nov. 1, 1993) (stating that “forms of
    cocaine base other than crack (e.g., coca paste . .) will
    be treated as cocaine”).
    We find the district court did not clearly err in
    determining the government had proved by a preponderance
    of the evidence that the drug at issue was crack. See
    United States v. Williams, 
    97 F.3d 240
    , 243 (8th Cir.
    1996) (standard of review).     An experienced narcotics
    officer testified that the lumpy, rocklike substance
    admitted as evidence was crack; an expert criminalist who
    had tested the substance testified that the drugs were
    cocaine base or crack; and Hall did not introduce
    evidence to the contrary. See United States v. Wilson,
    
    103 F.3d 1402
    , 1407 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejecting argument
    that evidence was insufficient to permit district court
    to conclude form of cocaine involved was crack; forensic
    chemist testified substance was cocaine base and
    conclusion was not contradicted by other evidence);
    United States v. Williams, 
    982 F.2d 1209
    , 1212 (8th Cir.
    1992) (identity of controlled substance may be proven
    through circumstantial evidence and opinion testimony;
    experienced narcotics detective opined substance was
    crack cocaine).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    -3-
    court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH
    CIRCUIT.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1071

Filed Date: 8/7/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015