NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0040n.06 F iled: Janu ary 20, 2009 No. 08-5118 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CORNEL I US EASL EY, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : SU HRHE I

NR I CH , B AT CH EL DE R and SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Cornelius Easley appea ls his 360-month sentence f or possessing
cra ck coc aine a

nd other drug s with the intent to dist ribute t hem. Beca use the district cour

t did not
e rr in c a lc ulatin g his a dv iso ry se nte nc ing -guid e lin e s r ang e , w e a ff ir m. I. On Fe bruar

y 16, 2006, members of a DEA task forc e arr ested Ea sley afte r watching him take part in an attempted drug sale. The y found cr ack c ocaine an d other drug s on him and discovere d
mor e dr ug s, sc a le s, a

c oo kin g tub e , tw o h and g un s and a larg e qu anti ty of c a shin h is h ome . In July 20 06 , a fe de ra l g ra

nd jur y ind ic te d E a sle y

fo r p os se ssi ngwi th i nte nt t o d istri bu te a t le a st 5 0 g ra ms of c ra c k c oc a ine and

un sp e c if ie d amo un ts of

hydr oc od on e and

mari jua na . Se e 21 U. S.C. § 841(a) (1). The drugs s e iz e d

d u r in g th e F e b r

u ar y 2 0 0 6 ar r e s t, a s it tu r n s o u t, s c r a tc h e d

th e s u r f a c e of E as l ey ’s dru g t ra d e. As E as l ey ad m i t t ed t o i n v es t i gat o rs i n Oc t o b er 2 0 0 6 , h e h adb ee ns el l i n g dru gsNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 2 - fo r m or e tha

n tw o d e c a de s. Whil e he ha d s old a va ri e ty of dr ug s to his c us tom ers ov e r t he y e a rs , cra ck long had been his best seller. During one fifteen-y ear stretch, he sold four ounce s (roug hly 113 g ra ms) of c ra c k ev e ry we e k. Ev e n the F e br ua ry arr e st an d J uly

ind ic tme nt d id n ot c ur

b h is b us ine ss: By the time he met with the investig ators, eig ht months after his ar rest, he ha d been caught thre e
mor e tim e s se lli ngc ra c k a nd oth e r d ru g s, e a c h ti me re su lti ngin a se pa ra te state -c ourt

ind ic tme nt. I n Aug ust 2007, Easley

plead ed gu ilty

to the fede ral c harg es stemming f rom the F ebrua

ry 20 06 arr e st. I n c a lc ulatin g his a dv iso ry se nte nc ing -guid e lin e s r ang e , th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt (P SR) considere d the drugs seiz ed in connec tion with the Februa ry arr est and his ear lier drugsales dating ba c k to 19 88 . T a kin g Ea sle y a t hi s w or d, the PSR a dd e d up Ea sle y ’s e sti ma te s o f p ri or we e kly sa le s, attributing to him total sales of ove r 83 kilog rams of c rac k along with sales of other drug s. Over Easley ’s objection, the district court acce pted the PSR’s drug- quantity finding . After addre ssing the statutory

sentenc ing f

actor s, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , the court imposed a bottom-ofthe-guidelines sentenc e of 360 months. II. I n appea ling his sentence, Ea sley argues that the district cour t miscalculated the g uidelines rang e, which ( if true) g ener all y would establish that the sentenc e wa s proce durally unrea sonable. See G all v. United States ,1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 96 –9 7 ( 20 07 ). As Ea sle y se e s it , th e c ourt ’s dr

ug -q ua nti ty
e qu a tio n s ho uld no t hav e inc lud e d his ea rl ie r dr ug sa le s for tw o re a so ns : (1 ) Th e y do no t c on sti tut e “re levant conduc t” under the g uidelines, see U
. S. S. G
. § 1 B 1
. 3 , an d ( 2 ) th e o n ly e v ide nce of the
sa le s— Eas ley ’s a c c ount d ur ingthe Oc tob e r 2 00 6 in te rv ie w— is u nr e lia ble , p ri nc ipa lly

be c a us e it failed to a ccount f

or his t i m e i n prison. We give fre sh review to the district court’s interpr etationNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 3 - of the mea

ning of “re levant conduc t” and r eview its fa ctual finding s for c lear er ror. See U nited States v. Mak

en , 510 F.3d 654, 656–57 ( 6th Cir. 2007). A. On e co mp o n en t o f th e se n t en ci n g ca l cu l u s i n a dr u g-t ra ff i ck i n g ca s e i s t h e q u an t i t y o f d ru gs involved, wh i ch re quires the district judg e to distinguish betwe en drug -re lated ac tiviti es that constitute “re levant conduc t” (whic h aff ect the of fense level) a

nd unrelated misdeed s ( which do not). Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . G ill , 348 F.3d 147, 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 –52 (6th Cir. 2003). As the guidelines explain, “q u an t i t i es an d t y

p es o f d ru gs n o ts p ec i fi edi nt h e c o u n to f c o n v i ct i o n ” m u s tb e i n cl u d edi nt h e d ru gquantity equation “if

they wer e par t of the same course of conduct or part of a common sche me or pla n a s the c ount o f c on vic tio n. ” U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 3 b a c kg ro un d n ote ; se e Un ite d Stat es v . S mi th , 245 F .3 d 5 38 , 5 44 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) . Pr ior dr ugtr ans a c tio ns satis fy

that st and ard

if the y are “ su bs tanti a lly
connec ted” to the of

fense of convic tion “by

at least one common fac tor, such as . . . co m m on
acc omplices, common purpose, or simil ar modus opera ndi,” U.S .S.G. § 1B1.3 n.9(A), or if they “ar e part of a single episode, spre e, or ong oing seri es of of fense s,” taking into account the “ deg ree of simil arity of the off enses, the r eg ularity

(re petitions) of the offe nses, and the time inter val betwe en the offe nses,” id. § 1 B 1. 3 n .9 (B ); se e als o U nit e d S tat es v . H ill , 79 F.3d 1 4 7 7 , 1 4 8 1

– 8 2 (6th Cir. 1996). The district cour

t le g itimately conclude d that Easley ’s prior drug transac tions involved the
same c ourse of

conduct a s his crime of conviction. Easley pleade d g uilty

to possessing with intent to distribute cra ck and hy drocodone —the s ame two drug s he tol d investigators he had be en peddling steadily since the mid-1980s. The drug para pherna lia found at his home—e q u i p m ent, g uns andNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 4 - c a sh —c on fi rm e d th at hi s b us ine ss w a s o ng oin g and thr ivi ng , and so did his thr e e state -l aw a rr e sts
a ft e r t he fe de ra l in dic tme nt. Ev e n th ou g h th e PSR p ro vid e s f e w de ta ils a

bo ut the pr ior

dr ugde a ls, Easley ’s own desc ription of them establishes their similarity and re g ularity
. Ea sle y ’s re

joi nd e r i s that the le ng th of tim e be tw e e n th e fi rs t dr

ugsa le s, wh ic h d a te ba c k to 1988, and his offe nse stretc hes “r eleva nt conduct” to the brea

king point. Eve n shorter g aps betwe en the offe nse of c onviction and si milar prior misdeeds, w e have held, ca n brea k the common-plan or
course -of- conduct link. See, e .g. , United States v. Kappes , 936 F.2d 227, 230–31 ( 1991) (holding that two instance s o f disability -bene fits fraud six y ear s apar t were not part of the sa

me cour se of conduct or

common plan such that the first fra ud could not constitute releva nt conduct in sentenc ing t h e d e f e n d an t f o r t h e s e c o n d )
. B u t a s Kappes and common sense tell us, two isolated offense s separ ated by

a seve ral-y ear

delay differ from a long -runningdrug -distribution business operated by the same de fenda

nt for over

a dec ade. See id. at 230. Doubtless, a time lapse betwee n a def endant’ s fi rs t dr ugde a l and

the on e tha

t le a ds to h is c on vic tio n ma y make it h ard e r f

or the g ov e rnme nt t o prove the fac ts of the ea

rlier a cts. But to the e x ten t t h o s e ac t s ar e part of one stea dy , continuous pattern, a longe r time span make s i t m o re, not less, likely that the ac ts involve the same cour se of
co n d u ct
. T h e di s t ri ct co u rt d i d n o t err i n co n s i d er i n g E as l ey ’s ea rl i er dru g t ra n s ac t i o n s i ni t s dru gquantity calc ulation. B. But e ven if these ear lier drugtransac tions may be considered releva nt conduct as a matter

of law, Ea sle y

argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t court c le arl y e rr e d as a ma tte r o f f a c t in makin g the dr

ug -q ua nti ty calc ulations. Easley

takes issue not with the district court’ s arithmetic but wit h the reliabilit y of theNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 5 - evidenc e purpor

ting to support its fig ures be cause (1) his statement t o investigators—descr ibing the
a mou nt o f c ra c k h e so ld p e r w e e k be tw e e n 19 88 and 20 05 —d oe s no t su pp ly a de qu a te e vid e nc e to support the cour

t’s drug -quantity

calc ulation, and (2) the district court’s a ddition of prior drugsales based on this estimate did not acc ount for the fac t that Easley had been arrested severa l times in that pe ri od and ha d s pe nt r ou g hly

six y e ars be tw e e n 1 98 8 a nd 20 05 be hin d b ars . That the district c ourt acc epted the PSR ’s acc ount of Easley ’s prior acts, which in turn
su mma ri zed wh a t E a sle y

tol d inve sti g a tor s, wi tho ut h e ari ngoth e r ev ide nc e do e s not und e rm ine its decision. In deter

mining drug quantities, as in deter mining other

sentenc ing f

acts, a “district cour

t may rely on any competent e vidence in the rec ord” so long as i t “ha[s] some minimum indicium of reliability bey ond mere alleg ation.” United States v. Hough , 276 F.3d 884, 891 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mit te d) ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3661; U.S .S.G. § 6A1.3(a) . An unre butted statement by

the de fe nd an t g ener ally

will satisfy

this requireme nt. See Gi ll , 348 F.3d at 156. Nor doe s it make a diff

ere nce that Easley

descr ibed hi s p revious practice s in an interview with the police, as opposed to te stify ing at the sentenc ing hear ing or submitt ing a notar ized written statement. A party admission is not he arsa y , and at any rate the rules of evidenc e g ener ally do not apply to sentencinghear ings. See F e d. R. E vid . 8 01 (d )( 2) (A ), 11 01 (d )( 3) ; United States v. Ham ad , 495 F.3d 241, 246 (6th Cir. 2007). A district court thus may consider he arsa

y statements containe d in a PSRif they

bear indicia of reliability and the court gives the de fenda nt an opportunity

to rebut them. See United States v. Silve rman , 9 76 F .2 d 1 50 2, 15 11 –1 3 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 2) (e n b anc ); se e als o United States v. Katzopoulos , 437 F.3d 569, 574–76 (6th Cir. 2006)
. The district court g ave E asley a cha nce to r ebut or a lter his statement, but aside f rom co n t es ting the r eliability of his ownNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 6 - rec ollection in ge nera l terms, he neither prese nted any

evidenc e of his own nor identified a spe cific, materia l ina ccur acy in the PSR ’s summary of what he sa id. Se e Un ite d Stat es v . S wan be rg , 370 F.3d 62 2, 62 5 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 4) . H e thu s h a s n o r e a so n to c omp la in a bo ut the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to
a c c e pt h is unr e bu tte d a c c ount. The district cour

t’s failure to acc ount for Ea sley ’s six y ear s of prison time during these 17 y ear s of drugtraff

icking is a trickier matter. Whether Easle y temporar ily

suspended his drugdealing while incar cer ated, a s he im plies, or whether he continued to sell drug s throug h outside associate s or “r esumed selling w ith a veng eanc e” ( to make up for lost sales) af

ter his re lease , as the g overnme nt speculates, Br . at 20, it is odd that the PS R and the district court ne ver me ntioned the point. Of
c ours e , E a sle y

a nd his c ouns e l sh are so me of the bla me be c a us e the y did

no t me nti on

it e ith e r i n th e ir written objec tions to t he PSR or at the sentenc ing he ari n g; t h ey argued more g ener ally

about the unreliability

of Easle y ’s memory
. But we need not decide whether plain err or applies be cause any appar ent er

ror c ould not have made a diffe renc e in Easley ’s sentenc e. A s e nte nc ingmis take is ha rm le ss w he n th e re c or d e sta bli sh e s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt wo uld have imposed the same sente nce w ith or wi t h o u t the er ror. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . A lfo rd , 436 F.3d 67 7, 68 2– 83 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; see also United States v . Anderson , 526 F.3d 319, 330 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Drug -quantity

miscalculations that do not aff ect the de fenda

nt’s g uidelines rang e often fall into that cate g ory . S

e e U n it e d S ta te s v . Charles , 138 F .3 d 2 57 , 2 68 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) ; United States v. Hettinger , 242 F. App’x 287, 296 (6th Cir. 2007). The guidelines after all contemplate something less than mathematica l prec ision in t his area , allowing a d i s t ri ct court to “estimate” the qua ntitiesNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 7 - inv olv e d wh e n po lic e do no t re c ov e r the dr ug s at is su e . U .S. S.G . § 2D 1. 1 n .1 2; see also Ande rson , 526 F.3d at 326. I n this case, a s the district court appr eciated, the amount of dr ug s so far e x ce eded the threshold for the highe st tier of the drug -quantity table that even excluding a g reat d ea l o f t hem
wo u l d n o th av e a ff

ec t edE as l ey ’s o ff

en s e l ev el
. S et t i n g as i d e th e ot h er dru gs E as l ey wa s p u s h i n g, his offense level would have rea ched the highe st rung of t he drug -quantity ladder even if the cour t had attributed 4.5 kilogr ams (as opposed to 83 kilogr ams) of cra ck to him—under the g uidelines then in effe ct. See U. S.S. G. § 2 D1 .1 (c )( 1) (2 00 7) ; cf. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c )(1) (2005) ( requiringonly 1.5 kilogr ams of cr ack to r eac h the hig hest offe nse leve l). Moving that much merc handise would be no small feat for m ost sellers. But at the rate Easley acknow ledg ed he w as selling cra ck for well over
a deca de, he would have rea ched that amount in just over nine months. At Easley ’s pac e, eve n if one excludes the time he was incar cer ated, the amount of cra ck he sold w ould sur pass the threshold for the hig hest g uidelines rang e nea rly thirteen times over
. And even if the court had counte d only the time since 1997 whe n Easley ended his last lengthy

stay in prison (on the theory

that activities befor e that imprisonment are too re mote to be re levant conduc t), he still would have sold over nine times the minimum needed to make it t o t h e t op tier of the dr ug -quantity

table. Corre cting the district court’s mistake—if

a mistake it was—would not have aff ecte d his advisory

offe nse leve l. Nor is there any

other re ason to think that this correc tion would have af fec ted his sentence
. To the c on tr ary : th e c ourt no te d th a t, had the ra

ng e no t be e n s o h ig h a lr e a dy , it “ wo uld pr ob a bly [have] adjust[ ed] the rang e up,” but it was “ not nece ssary to do that in this case beca use of the ve ryNo. 08-5118

United States v. Easley

- 8 - hig h r ang e .” JA 60
. Th e c ourt ’s fa ilure to ac c ount fo r Ea sle y ’s imp ri so nme nt co uld no t pl a us ibl y have a ff e c te d h is s e nte nc e , ma

kin g any po te nti a l e rr or

ha rm le ss. III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.