Marc Moore v. City of Sedalia etc.

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-3911
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Randy L. Woods, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: October 5, 2001
Filed: October 10, 2001
___________
Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
___________
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 court1 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)

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
(standard of review), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1165 (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 the first time on appeal. See Tarsney
v. O’Keefe, 225 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1364 (2001).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --