Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02176/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Solomon L. Coffey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2176

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Solomon L. Coffey, also known as *

Solomon Murray, also known as Box, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Appeals From the United States

No. 04-2247 District Court for the

___________ District of Nebraska.

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Solomon L. Coffey, also known as *

Levell Coffey, also known as Levell *

Murray, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2004

Filed: January 21, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Court for the

District of Nebraska.

2

Coffey also appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release on

his 1995 federal conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The

court found that Coffey had violated his supervised release by committing the instant

offense. Coffey argues that the court erred in so doing, because the evidence was

insufficient to sustain this conviction. As detailed below, we disagree and therefore

also affirm the revocation of his supervised release.

-2-

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Following a jury trial, Solomon L. Coffey was found guilty of conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 846. The district court1

 sentenced him to 324 months in

prison. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction, and that he was sentenced in violation of the Constitution. We affirm his

conviction, but remand for resentencing.2

BACKGROUND

We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. United

States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003). According to the testimony

of several witnesses, Coffey bought and sold large quantities of crack cocaine in 2000

and 2001 throughout the Omaha, Nebraska area. Kevin Jones testified that he was

indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack, and entered into a plea agreement, which

required him to debrief fully and cooperate with law enforcement. Jones told the jury

that he began buying crack from Coffey in 2000, and that he would purchase crack

every few days from Coffey. Jones paid Coffey between $650 and $700 an ounce; he

started out purchasing one and one-half or two ounces at a time, but soon increased

his volume. Jones recounted making several purchases of six ounces of crack, and

recalled twice buying nine ounces at a time. Jones himself was a dealer with

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
-3-

approximately fifty customers, and he would resell the crack he purchased from

Coffey at a profit. Once, Coffey told Jones that Jones was one of Coffey’s best

customers because he bought so much crack. Jones estimated that in one year’s time,

he paid Coffey more than $300,000 for crack purchases.

Roderick Jennings, also a crack dealer, testified that he was in Omaha for

roughly two to three months in the fall of 2001. Jennings came to Omaha as a

fugitive, with charges pending in Colorado. He sought to deal crack in Omaha to

support himself while on the run. Jennings met Coffey through a mutual friend, and

Coffey agreed to sell Jennings nine ounces of crack. He bought nine ounces of crack

from Coffey for $6,300 during their first deal. The crack was packaged in nine

individual one-ounce bags. Four or five days later Jennings then bought another

eighteen ounces from Coffey for a purchase price of $13,200. After another four or

five days passed, Jennings purchased another eighteen ounces of crack from Coffey

for the same price.

Jimmy Swain, another drug dealer, said that he started purchasing drugs from

Coffey in approximately August or September of 2001. He testified that he only dealt

with Coffey for about one and one-half weeks, while his main supplier was not

available. He stated that during that time, he bought crack from Coffey in one-half

ounce or one-ounce quantities. Swain testified that the crack he obtained from Coffey

was prepackaged in smaller, seven-gram amounts. Swain recalled that Coffey once

asked Swain to ride around with him to sell some crack. As they drove, Swain’s

acquaintances would ask Swain if he had any crack, and Swain would direct them to

Coffey. Coffey possessed approximately eight quarter-ounce packages of crack during

this encounter. Altogether, Swain estimated that he purchased as much as nine ounces

of crack from Coffey. Swain advised the jury that he had pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute crack and had a cooperation agreement that could enable him to receive a

sentence reduction if he testified truthfully.

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
-4-

Like Swain, Curtis Holmes pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack.

Holmes received a 292-month sentence, but told the jury that he hoped that he would

get a sentence reduction in exchange for the information he was providing to the

government. Holmes met Coffey around June of 2001. They met one another through

another crack dealer, who Holmes knew only as “E.” Holmes recalled being present

at an apartment with Coffey and another of their mutual suppliers, “Vinnie,” in

October of 2001. Holmes saw Vinnie measure out nine ounces of crack, wrapped as

individual ounces. When Coffey arrived, Vinnie took Coffey into a bedroom, carrying

the nine ounces of crack. When they emerged, Vinnie no longer had the drugs.

Holmes witnessed this happen again about a week later, but this time Holmes saw

Vinnie measure out fifteen to eighteen ounces of crack before disappearing into a

bedroom with Coffey and the drugs. A few days following this encounter, Holmes

was present at the apartment when Coffey arrived and gave Vinnie several thousand

dollars in cash. Holmes opined that the money was payment for fifteen to eighteen

ounces of crack Coffey had gotten from Vinnie a couple of days earlier.

Danae Scott was associated with Curtis Holmes, and was acquainted with

Vinnie because he dated Scott’s friend. Scott testified that she traveled with Vinnie

to Omaha twice. Both times Vinnie met with Coffey. She corroborated Holmes’s

account of the transactions he saw: Coffey would arrive at Vinnie’s apartment, Coffey

and Vinnie would retreat to a bedroom, and then Coffey would leave shortly

thereafter.

Coffey had three witnesses testify on his behalf. Greg Lloyd testified that

Coffey was employed during the time he was alleged to be dealing drugs. He said that

Coffey lived modestly and did not have extravagant clothes or cars, or lots of cash on

hand. Glyniss Thompson testified that Coffey lived with her during the period of the

indictment, worked, and did not drive a fancy car or wear fancy clothes. In fact, she

said that Coffey had cars repossessed during their relationship because he could not

pay for them. Lastly, Coffey’s mother, Diane Coffey, testified on his behalf. She said

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
3

USSG § 2D1.1(c)(4).

4

USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1).

-5-

Coffey had a job and had trouble paying his bills. She also testified that she never saw

Coffey in possession of drugs.

The jury convicted Coffey of conspiracy to distribute or possession with intent

to distribute crack. The verdict form asked the jury to indicate what amount of crack

was attributable to Coffey: less than five grams, between five and fifty grams, or fiftyplus grams. The jury checked the box for fifty or more grams. Although an offense

like Coffey’s involving fifty grams of crack would result in an offense level of 32,3

 the

presentence report suggested holding Coffey responsible for approximately 2.7

kilograms of crack, with a resultant offense level of 38.4

 Coffey objected, arguing that

there was insufficient evidence to calculate any quantity of drugs for his offense. The

district court overruled Coffey’s objection and adopted the presentence report’s drug

quantity calculation. With an offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of

IV, Coffey’s sentencing range was 324 to 405 months. Coffey was sentenced to 324

months in prison, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

“A conspiracy conviction will be upheld where the evidence shows that a

conspiracy existed for an illegal purpose, the defendant knew of the conspiracy, and

the defendant intentionally joined it.” United States v. Cuervo, 354 F.3d 969, 985 (8th

Cir. 2004). “[T]he government must show an agreement between at least two people,

and that the agreement’s objective was a violation of the law.” Id.

As recounted above, the government’s evidence showed that Coffey was

deeply involved in a conspiracy to distribute crack. Jones, Jennings, and Swain were

all drug dealers. Each testified that they bought large quantities of crack from Coffey,

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
-6-

and that each discrete sale involved more than a user quantity. Their testimony

established that Coffey was responsible for the sales of several pounds of crack and

received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his efforts. Jennings and Swain both

stated that the crack they purchased from Coffey was already broken into smaller

quantities. Thus, it was permissible for the jury to infer, due to the sheer size of the

transactions and the way the drugs were packaged that these were not mere

buyer/seller transactions. Accord United States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th

Cir. 2002) (upholding drug conspiracy conviction in light of large amount of

contraband involved in sales and standardized transactions). On the contrary, the

government presented evidence that Coffey would buy large quantities of crack from

a distributor and then resell them to fellow dealers in packaging and amounts

consistent with the further distribution of the drug.

Coffey asserts that the government’s evidence must fail because it was contrary

to the evidence that he maintained a modest, financially unstable lifestyle, and because

the government’s witnesses were biased against him. The “issue of witness credibility

is virtually unreviewable on appeal because it is ‘preeminently the job of the finder of

fact.’” United States v. Rayl, 270 F.3d 709, 713 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States

v. E.R.B., 86 F.3d 129, 130 (8th Cir. 1996)); United States v. Dabney, 367 F.3d 1040,

1042-43 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that an attack on the credibility of cooperating

witnesses “resounds like a closing argument to a jury” and is typically not within the

province of an appellate court to reconsider). Given our restrictive standard, Coffey’s

case does not present a compelling argument for acquittal based on witness credibility.

While Jones and Swain had cooperation agreements, Jennings did not. All of them

testified to essentially the same type of large-scale transactions. Holmes and Scott

corroborated Coffey’s drug dealing by their observations of Coffey’s interactions with

other suppliers. The fact that Coffey’s witnesses disputed the government’s case does

not provide us with a basis to overturn the jury verdict.

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770 
5

We express no opinion on whether a sentence handed down under the

mandatory Guidelines system is plainly erroneous, nor do we consider the outer limits

of precisely what will preserve the issue.

-7-

Finally, Coffey claims that he was sentenced in violation of his Sixth

Amendment right to a jury trial, as recognized in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004). He argues that the district court impermissibly held him responsible for

a higher drug quantity than the amount the jury attributed to him. Prior to sentencing,

Coffey asserted that there was insufficient evidence to calculate any drug quantity

against him. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced Coffey using an

offense level applicable to 2.7 kilograms of crack, despite no jury finding in support

of this amount.

Whether or not Blakely applied to the United States Sentencing Guidelines is

no longer an open question: the Supreme Court has now held that it does. See

generally United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 2005 WL 50108 (Jan. 12, 2005).

Booker holds the mandatory guidelines scheme employed by federal courts is

unconstitutional. Id., 543 U.S. ___, slip. op. at 4-5 & n.1; 19-20 (Op. of Stevens, J.,

for the Court); 2005 WL 50108, at *5-6 & n.1; 15. Instead, the Guidelines are now

“effectively advisory,” and defendants such as Coffey who have preserved the issue

are entitled to new sentencing proceedings.5

 Id., 543 U.S. ___, slip. op. at 2 (Op. of

Breyer, J., for the Court); 2005 WL 50108, at *16. We thus remand for resentencing

in accordance with Booker.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s denial of Coffey’s motion for acquittal, affirm

the revocation of his supervised release due to the instant offense, and remand for

reconsideration of his sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2176 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857770