Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01126/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01126-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Fausnaught
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

-1-

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1126

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v.

STEPHEN FAUSNAUGHT

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 03-0032)

District Judge: Edwin M. Kosik

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

on March 23, 2010

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: May 20, 2010)

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

Steven Fausnaught was convicted by a jury on all twelve counts in a third

superseding indictment. The charges against him included conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, in

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-2-

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Fausnaught raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues

that his conspiracy conviction should be vacated because there was a variance between

the indictment and the proof presented at trial as to the existence of a single conspiracy

and this variance prejudiced a substantial right. Second, he contends that the District

Court erred at sentencing both by attributing to him a quantity of methamphetamine

distributed by a co-defendant and by enhancing his sentence for possession of a firearm in

connection with the offense. We find that no variance existed and that the District Court

did not err at sentencing. Accordingly, we uphold Fausnaught’s conviction and affirm his

sentence. 

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we only discuss the facts and

proceedings to the extent necessary for resolution of this case. Testimony presented to

the jury at trial revealed that sometime in the early 1990s, Fausnaught began supplying

marijuana on a consignment basis to Charles Sechler, Shane Mowrer, Timothy Moore,

Robert Levan, and others. Fausnaught took over the role of his brother Michael, who had

supplied marijuana up until his death from a drug overdose. Fausnaught “fronted” the

product to these individuals: he would give drugs to them and they would in turn sell the

drugs and repay him from the proceeds. In December 1995, Fausnaught’s residence was

raided by police. During the raid, the police found marijuana, firearms, scales, packing

material and money. They arrested Fausnaught. While in police custody, Fausnaught

telephoned Moore and instructed him to contact the people that were fronted marijuana

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-3-

and owed him money in order to collect payment. Moore contacted Sechler, Levan and

others and collected approximately $12,000, which was used as bail money for

Fausnaught. The drug evidence obtained in the raid was ultimately suppressed and

Fausnaught was not convicted of any related charges. 

For a period following the raid, Fausnaught ceased supplying marijuana. In

Fausnaught’s absence, Sechler began supplying Moore and others with marijuana that

Levan transported from California. Fausnaught eventually resumed selling marijuana to

Moore and John Rundle. Fausnaught, Sechler, and others also traveled together to

Amsterdam to attend the Cannabis Cup, an international marijuana growing competition,

to procure high-quality marijuana seeds for a grow operation in Sechler’s farmhouse.

In approximately 2000, both Fausnaught and Sechler began selling

methamphetamine. Fausnaught sold methamphetamine to Rundle and Sechler sold

methamphetamine to Moore. Moore testified that he would pick up methamphetamine

from Sechler at the same time that Moore was picking up marijuana. This

methamphetamine was stored in Sechler’s farmhouse, where marijuana was stored and

grown. It also came from the same source, in California, from which Sechler obtained

marijuana. Rundle testified that he obtained methamphetamine from Fausnaught starting

sometime in 2000 and ending in October 2002, when Rundle’s residence was searched by

police. Rundle had been buying marijuana from Fausnaught since approximately 1997

and continued to do so while purchasing methamphetamine. 

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-4-

During the months leading up to a January 2003 raid on their respective

residences, Fausnaught and Sechler maintained regular contact. Indeed, pen register

records show that between February and July 2002, the pair were in telephone contact

with one another eighty-seven times. Additionally, between October 2002 and the date of

the raid, Fausnaught and Sechler made telephone contact eighty-nine times. 

Furthermore, on October 7, 2002, police officers conducting surveillance saw Fausnaught

at Sechler’s farmhouse, where a witness had testified marijuana and methamphetamine

were stored. The two were seen loading something into Fausnaught’s vehicle. 

On January 11, 2003, the police executed warrants on Fausnaught’s residence and

Sechler’s residence and farmhouse. At Fausnaught’s residence, the police found guns,

money, marijuana, a scale and packing material. The police raid on Sechler’s farmhouse

yielded money, drug paraphernalia, and a number of objects—literature about cultivating

marijuana, a shopping list, and empty seed bags from Amsterdam—suggesting a grow

operation.

An initial indictment against Fausnaught, Rundle, David Benjamin and Moore was

returned on February 11, 2003. It charged conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and

marijuana, as well as related crimes. Subsequent superseding indictments added other

Defendants and removed Rundle and Moore. The third superseding indictment, which

the grand jury returned on August 12, 2003, contained twelve counts against Fausnaught

and Sechler. Fausnaught was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-5-

intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine and in excess of 100

kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, as well as related offenses. 

On July 30, 2007, following a six-day trial, Fausnaught and Sechler were

convicted on all charges levied against them in the third superseding indictment. 

Fausnaught was found to have an offense level of 40 under the sentencing guidelines

because his offense involved at least 15 kilograms of methamphetamine and 100

kilograms of marijuana and dangerous weapons were possessed in connection with the

offense. As a result, Fausnaught’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 292 months

to 365 months in prison. Fausnaught was subsequently sentenced on December 29, 2008

to 292 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and was ordered to

pay a special assessment of $900.

Thereafter, Fausnaught filed this appeal.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have

appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

A. Variance between the indictment and the evidence at trial

We must vacate a conviction “when (1) there is a variance between the indictment

and the proof presented at trial and (2) the variance prejudices a substantial right of the

defendant.” United States v. Kelly, 892 F.2d 255, 258 (3d Cir. 1989); see also United

States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 287 (3d Cir. 2007). Fausnaught argues that a variance

exists in his case, because, while the indictment charged a single conspiracy, at trial the

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-6-

Government proved multiple conspiracies. Fausnaught contends that, as a result of this

alleged variance, the jury heard extensive evidence about drug sales and weapons

possession that would have been otherwise inadmissible, and that this consequently

prejudiced him. 

To distinguish between single and multiple conspiracies, we generally consider

three factors: (1) whether the conspirators shared a common goal; (2) whether the

agreement “contemplated bringing to pass a continuous result that will not continue

without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators;” and (3) “the extent to which the

participants overlap in the various dealings.” Kelly, 892 F.2d at 259 (internal citations and

quotations omitted). The absence of one of these factors, however, “does not necessarily

defeat an inference of the existence of a single conspiracy.” United States v. Padilla, 982

F.2d 110, 115 (3d Cir. 1992). Whether a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies exist

is a fact question that is entrusted to the jury and which we will sustain if there is

substantial evidence to support the jury’s determination. United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d

318, 345 (3d Cir. 2002). We review the record in the light most favorable to the

government. Kemp, 500 F.3d at 287. 

The first factor we consider is whether there was a common goal among the

conspirators. In assessing whether the defendants shared a common goal, we look to the

underlying purpose of the alleged criminal activity. See, Kelly, 892 F.2d at 259. In Kelly,

the “common goal of all the participants was simply to make money selling ‘speed.’” Id.

Similarly, the common goal among Fausnaught, Sechler, and their coconspirators was to

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-7-

make money from selling drugs. This was a goal that Fausnaught, Sechler, and others

pursued through coordinated efforts from prior to 1995 through 2003. 

Next, we consider whether the conspirators’ agreement sought to accomplish a

continuous result that would not persist without the continuous cooperation of the

conspirators. We have considered this element satisfied where the “evidence supports a

finding that the activities of others were necessary or advantageous to the success of

another aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the venture.” United States v.

Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 1117 (3d Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 

Fausnaught argues that there were no continuous results intended, nor was there

continuous cooperation, as he dropped out of the picture for a brief period of time

following the 1995 raid on his home. Testimony revealed, however, that the conspiracy

persisted and that Fausnaught shortly returned to it. Moreover, there is no indication that

he attempted to withdraw from the conspiracy. See United States v. Kushner, 305 F.3d

194, 198 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that withdrawal from a conspiracy requires more than the

cessation of criminal activity and typically demands either confession to the proper

authorities or communication to one’s co-conspirators that an individual has abandoned

the enterprise and its objectives). The record at trial included substantial evidence of

activities by members of the conspiracy that were necessary to further its overall purpose

of making money through the sale of drugs. This included, inter alia, the transportation of

drugs; the supply, distribution and sale of the drugs; storage of the drugs at the residences

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-8-

of members of the conspiracy; and travel to Amsterdam to obtain materials for the

growing of marijuana. 

Finally, we consider the extent to which participants overlap in the various

dealings. “‘[T]he government need not prove that each defendant knew all the details,

goals, or other participants in order to find a single conspiracy.” Kelly, 892 F.2d at 260

(citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, there is significant overlap between the

participants, as Fausnaught concedes in his brief. We note just a few points of overlap. 

Moore purchased marijuana from both Sechler and Fausnaught at different points in time. 

He continued to purchase marijuana from Fausnaught at the same time that he was

purchasing methamphetamine from Sechler. Levan both purchased marijuana distributed

by Fausnaught and transported marijuana for Sechler. Fausnaught and Sechler traveled to

Amsterdam together to obtain marijuana seeds. At Fausnaught’s request, Moore contacted

other members of the conspiracy to obtain money they owed to Fausnaught in order to

help him in making bail. This and other evidence presented at trial reveal sufficient

overlap to prove a single conspiracy. 

Our analysis is not affected by the fact that the evidence only established that

Sechler supplied methamphetamine to Moore and Fausnaught supplied it to Rundle. “[A]

finding of a master conspiracy with sub-schemes does not constitute a finding of multiple,

unrelated conspiracies and, therefore, would not create an impermissible variance.” 

United States v. Smith, 789 F.2d 196, 200 (3d Cir. 1986). Given the network of

overlapping interactions among the Defendants, with the shared goal of making money

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-9-

from the sale of drugs, the jury did not err in finding a single conspiracy involving both

marijuana and methamphetamine. Having found that no variance existed, we need not

address Fausnaught’s arguments regarding prejudice. 

B. Sentencing issues

Fausnaught argues that the District Court erred at sentencing when it attributed to

him a quantity of methamphetamine distributed by Sechler. We review for clear error the

District Court’s findings of fact regarding the relevant quantity of drugs attributable at

sentencing. United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 1999); see also United

States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[T]his Court will continue to review

factual findings relevant to the Guidelines for clear error and to exercise plenary review

over a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines.”) Under Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) of

the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s base offense level is determined by considering,

among other factors, 

in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme,

endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others,

whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.

We have held that “whether an individual defendant may be held accountable for amounts

of drugs involved in reasonably foreseeable transactions conducted by co-conspirators

depends upon the degree of the defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy.” United States

v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir. 1992). We assess involvement by considering

whether the co-conspirator’s drug transactions were: (1) “in furtherance of the . . . jointlyCase: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-10-

undertaken activity;” (2) “within the scope of the defendant’s agreement;” and (3)

“reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity the defendant agreed to

undertake.” See id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3). 

Fausnaught argues that Sechler’s methamphetamine transactions should not be

attributed to him because, while the two had prior dealings involving marijuana, there was

“no proof that the two shared suppliers or customers” for methamphetamine. (Appellant’s

Br. at 22.) The jury convicted Fausnaught and Sechler of participating in a conspiracy to

distribute both marijuana and methamphetamine. Fausnaught and Sechler played central

roles within this conspiracy. The evidence showed that Fausnaught and Sechler frequently

spoke to each other by telephone and met in person during the period in which they were

distributing methamphetamine. Police officers observed Fausnaught with Sechler moving

a package from Sechler’s farmhouse, in which a witness testified that methamphetamine

was stored, into Fausnaught’s car. Given this and other evidence in the record, we find no

basis to conclude that the District Court erred when it determined that the

methamphetamine distributed by Sechler was within the scope of and in furtherance of the

conspiracy proven at trial and that this transaction was reasonably foreseeable to

Fausnaught.

Fausnaught also argues that the District Court erred by enhancing his offense level

by two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense. 

Fausnaught did not raise this objection at sentencing. The commentary to U.S.S.G. §

2D1.1(b)(1) states that this enhancement should be applied when a weapon is present

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
-11-

unless it is “clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” United

States v. Drozdowski, 313 F.3d 819, 820 (3d Cir. 2002). A rifle and shotgun were found in

Fausnaught’s residence during the search on January 11, 2003, a search that also yielded

marijuana, methamphetamine, a scale, cash, an owe sheet, and drug paraphernalia. Guns

had also been found, with drugs and related materials, during the December 1995 search of

Fausnaught’s residence. The inventory receipt from that search was admitted into

evidence at the trial, as well as two of the guns seized. Additional firearms, and drugs,

were found in the search of the residence of John Rundle, one of Fausnaught’s coconspirators. Given these facts, we find that it was not clearly improbable that the guns

found in Fausnaught’s residence were connected to the drug conspiracy. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Fausnaught’s conviction for conspiracy as

well as his sentence. 

Case: 09-1126 Document: 003110152003 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/20/2010