1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0642n.06 Filed: Oc tober 21, 2008 No. 07-5617 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA Plaintif f-Appellee , On Appea l from the v. United States District Court for the Easter n District of Tenne ssee R I C HAR D G L EN M I LB U RN Defendant-

Appellant

.

______________________________ B e fo re : K EN

NE DY , SU TT ON , a

nd MCK EA GU E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. KENN EDY, J. Ric ha

rd Mil burn a pp e a ls h is c on vic tio ns fo r v a ri ou s d ru g - a nd fi re a rm related offe nses. He r aises thre e ar g uments on appea l: (1 ) venue is improper as to the dr ug and firea rm offe nses re lating to his ar rest in G eorg ia; (2) the varia nce betwee n the quantity

of marijuana
c ha rg e d a nd the a mou

nt de te rm ine d in the jur

y ’s ve rd ic t on

Count O ne is i mpe rm iss ibl e and sh ou ld result in the d i s m i s s al o f that count; and ( 3) the district cour t failed to consider

fully all fac tors underlying the application of a rea sonable sen t en ce . Fo r t he following rea sons, we AF FI RM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. BACK GR OUND Milbur n ’ s mu lt ip le

- c o u n t i n d ic tm e n t a n d c o n v ic ti o n w a s b a s e d

o n tw o s o me w h at in dep e nd e nt s e ri e s o f e ve nts inv olv inghis na rc oti c s d e a lin g s. Mil burn wa s arr e ste d at a

ho te l in Ge or g ia on Se pte mbe r 8 , 2 00 4, a nd

on a se pa rate oc c a sio n, Mil burn

wa s arr e ste d at a

g a s st a tio n in Tenne ssee on De cembe r 1, 2005.2

Milburn travele d to Georg ia af ter lea ving T enness e e w it

h c a s h to p u r c h a s e me th a

mphe tamine from a c ontact of Tr oy

Ward, an a cquaintance. J
. A. at 312. Ward had done drug s at Milburn’s house and Ward was involved with a n associate of Milburn’s by the name of

Mark Saults. J .A. at 3 0 5
. S a u l t s h a d b o u g h tm e t h a mp h e t a m i n e f r o m an d s o l d m a r i j u a n a t o M i l b u r

n . J
. A
. 1 8 1

- 8 3
. In September of

2004, Milburn asked Ward to p u rc h as e methamphe tamine in Geor g ia from a drug dealer k n o wn to Ward only as “Julio” and bring it back to Tenne ssee. J.A. at 310. Milburn met War d in B a ile y ton , T e nn e sse e –in

the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of Te nn e sse e –a

nd g a ve War d $ 5, 40 0 in

c a sh fo r t he me tha mph e tamin e a nd

$1 00 fo r g a s mo ne y . J.A . at 30 8. War d too k th a t mo ne y to G e or g ia that night a

nd g ave J ulio $4,200 of Milburn’s cash to pur chase a quarte r pound of methamphe tamine. J.A. a t 31 1. Julio too k the mon e y a nd ne ve r re tur ne d. J.A. a t 311. War d the n ca lle d M ilb ur n, tol d him what happene d with J ulio, and indicated that he had found a noth e r s o u r c e for methamphetamine. J .A. at 311-12. Milburn decided to g o to Georg ia from Te nnessee himself with betwee n $10,000 and $12,000 in cash to purc hase more methamphetamine f rom Ward’s conta ct. J .A. at 312. Mi lburn met Ward at the hotel a

nd they wer e ar rested

. T h e p o l i ce office rs sea rche d the room and Milburn’s person a nd found 37.25 g rams of methamphetamine, cash, t hree g uns, and dig ital scales. B oth Count Four , attempt to possess with the intent to distribute me thamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 846 and 841(b) (1)( C) and 18 U.S.C . § 2, and Count Five, c arr y ing a firea rm during and in re lation to a dr ugtr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( c )( 1) , a ri se ou t of thi s se ri e s of

e ve nts
. Police arr ested Milburn in Tenne ssee dur ing a drug deal be tween Milburn and S aults on one side, and Thomas Turner on the other. Turner was a former drug traff icker who now wor

ked for the police. J.A. at 276. Turner se t up a dea l to sell methamphetam i n e an d m ar i j u ana to Saults, but Saults did not have the money to purcha se t h e d ru gs , s o M i l b urn ag ree d to buy the drug s. J .A. at3

189-90. Saults would sell part of the dr ug s pu rc h as ed b y M i l burn, and the n Saults would use the proce eds to repa

y Milburn and t hey

would split t he prof

it. J .A. at 191. On De cembe r 1, 2005, Turner met with Saults and Milburn at a gas station in Boone s Creek, Te nnessee wher e the police
wer e wa iting. J.A. at 222. Turner g ave the signa l a nd the police arr ested Saults and Milburn on the spot. J .A. at 223. I

n sear chin g M i l b u rn ’s pi ckup truc k and his person, of fice rs discover ed methamphetamine, te ns of thousands of dollars i n cash, two g uns, digital sc ales with drugresidue, a methamphe tamine pipe, methlsulfonal monohy drate (used to dilute methamphetamin e ) , a nd a drug le dg e r. J .A. at 22 4-31 . Co un t Six, atte mpt to p os se ss w iththe int e nt t o d istri bu te mari jua na in vio la tio n of 21 U. S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( b) (1 )( D) and

18 U. S.C. § 2 ; Co un t Se ve n, a tte mpt to p os se ss with the intent to distribute 50 g rams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
and 841(b )(1 )(A) and

18 U. S.C. § 2 ; Co un t E ig ht, po sse ssi on wi th t he int e nt t o d istri bu te
m et h am p h et am i n e i n v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U. S
. C
. § § 8 4 6 an d 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( C ); an d C o u n t Ni n e, ca rr y i n g a fi re arm duri nga nd

in r e la tio n to a

dr ugtr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e in v iol a tio n o f 18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (c )( 1) a ll
arose out of the eve nts relating to Milburn’s arre st in Tennessee

. Counts On e a nd

Tw o d e a lt wi th conspi ra c y to d ist ri bu te and

po sse ssi on

wi th t he int e nt t o dis tr ibute mari

jua na a nd me tha

mph e tamin e , re sp e c tiv e ly , ar isi ng ou t of the e ve nts le a din g up to b oth

arr ests mentioned above –in addition to other dealing s–betwee n approximately J anuar y 1995 and Dec ember

13, 2005. J .A. at 46, 54. Count Ten, possession of an unre g istered short ba rre led fire arm i n violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), came out of the discovery of a sawe d-off shotgun durin g a lawf ul s e arc h o f M ilb ur

n’ s ho us e . Th e la st c ount, Cou nt E le ve n, wa s f

or po sse ssi ngc on tr a

ba nd in prison.4

I n the district court, De fe n d ant fil ed a motion to dismiss Counts Four and F ive for la ck of
venue which the district cour t denied. J.A. at 71. Defe ndant’s motion for judg ment of ac quittal for lack of venue w as also denie d by the district court. J.A. at 330. T h e d i s t ri ct cour t also rejec ted De fe nd ant’ s oth e r a rgume nts that Count On e sh ou ld b e str ic ke n, Counts F ive a nd Ni ne sh ou ld f

a ll with Count One , an d De fe n dant’s sente nce should be adjusted ac cording ly . J .A. at 336-37. Convicted as to Counts One and Tw o and Counts F our throug h Eleven, D efe ndant was se ntence d to 480 months i n prison, the statutory minimum . J .A. at 344. AN AL YSI S I
. Venue as to Counts Four and F ive Separate ana ly ses guide the deter mination of whether venue i s proper for Count s Four and F ive . Co un t F ive is f

or c a rr y inga fi re a rm duri nga nd

in r e la tio n to a

dr ugtr a ff ic kin g offens e in violation of § 924(c). I ts analy sis must proce ed under the fra mework of Un ite d S

tat es v . R od

riguezMoreno , 526 U.S. 275 (1999) which he ld that venue is appr opriate f or a violation o f § 924(c) wher ever venue is a

ppropriate as to the underly ing continuing crime. 526 U.S. at 281. As for Count Four , the under ly ing c ontinuing cr ime, United States v. Cabrales , 524 U.S. 1 (1998) he ld that venue is appropriate wher ever

the offe nse is “‘begun, continued, or c ompleted.’” 524 U.S. at 7 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)). Def endant a rg ues that venue for the Geo rgi a offenses is improper wher e “[t]he alleg ed offe nses took place many

hundreds of miles from one a nother,” “[m] ore tha

n one full y ear

separ ated the Geor g ia and Te nnessee offe nses,” a nd “[a]si de fr om the fac t that both state s’ offe nses involved g ener ic drugchar g es, no other similarities existed.” Def . Br . at 11. These arguments misconstrue the re lationship the law focuse s on for the p u rp o s es of venue as that betwe en the c harg es broug htThe c ourt in Zid e ll a lso he ld t

hat si nc e “ [t]he e ff

e c ts o f t he a tte mpted dis tr ibutio n, if 1 su c c e ssf ul, wo uld have be e n fe lt in Me mph is, ” ve nu e wa s pr op e r un de r a su bs tanti a l c on ta c ts t e st. 323 F.3d at 423. While the court in Zid e ll se e min g ly a na ly

zed su bs tanti a l con ta c ts as a

su ff ic ie nt, alternative g round on which to find venue, 323 F.3d a t 423 (following an ana ly sis of whether venue is proper unde r § 3237(a) , the court wrote: “[m] ore g ener ally , we have eva luated cha lleng es to venue under a ‘substantial contac ts’ test . . .”), other Six th Circuit pa n el s h av e dete rmined whe ther a n offe nse wa s beg un, continued, or completed per § 3237(a) throug h the application of the substantial 5 ag ainst Def

endant, when t he real issue in consider ation of venue is the relationship betwe en the plac e of the criminal behavior and the place of trial. Acc ording ly , Def endant’ s arguments fail wher e the fac ts establish that t h e cr i m e o f attempted posse ssion with the intent to di stribute beg an in the Easter n District of Tenne ssee with a me eting betwee n Milburn and Ward. Un ite d S tat es v . Zi de ll , 323 F.3d 412 ( 6th Cir. 2003) controls here . I n Zid e ll , the def

endant lived in Dallas, Texas, but he had me t with his assoc iates in Me mphis, he had induced his assoc iates to travel fr om Memphis to Dallas on two occa sions, and his associates ha d taken methamphetamine fr om t he de fe nd a nt i n D a lla s w ith the a im to se ll the dr ug s re c e ive d fr om the de fe nd a nt in M e mph is

and the n p ay the de fe nd a nt ba c k wi th the pr oc e e ds be fo re the y we re a rr e ste d pr ior to the ir a rr iva l in Me mph is. 32 3 F.3d at 42 3. Th e de fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f atte mpt to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o distribute methamphetamine in v i o lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the same cr ime at issue her e. He
ar gu ed t h at v en u e wa s i mp ro p er i n t h e W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f T en n es s ee s i n ce “h e s u p p l i edt h e d ru gs in que stion solely

in Texas[ ] and without t rave ling to Memphis.” Id. at 422. The Six th Circuit panel in Zid e ll reje cted that a

rg ument, and instead looked at a b ro ad er scope of e vents, indicating that
venue w as established w here the attempted distribution beg an in Memphis with the defe ndant’s
me e ti n g w i t h h i s a s s o c i a t e s , c o n t i n u e d i n M e m p h i s b e c a u s e i t w a s t h e p o i n t o f d e p a rtur e fo r h is

a sso c ia te s, a nd te rm inate d in Me mph is s inc e the de fe nd a nt’ s a sso c ia te s in te nd e d to re tur n th e re to sell the m ethamphetamine. Id at 423

. Simi larl y , in the ins tant c a se , D e fe nd a nt m e t w ithWar d in 1contac ts te st. See United States v. Be ddow , 957 F .2 d 133 0, 13 35 -3 6 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 2) ; se e ge ne ra lly United States v. W

illiams , 7 88 F .2 d 121 3, 12 15 (6 th C ir . 1 98 6) (h old ingthat ve nu e g e ne ra lly is e va luate d und e r s ub sta

nti a l con ta c ts in the Sixth Cir c uit ). L ike the Un ite d Stat e s Supr e me Court in Cabrales , we loo k o nly

a t loc us de lic ti , deter

mined from “‘the nature of the cr ime alleg ed and the l o ca t i o no f t h e a cto r a ct s co n s t i tu t i n g i t , ’” 5 2 4 U
. S
. at 7 (q u o t i n g United States v. Ande rson , 328 U.S. 699, 703 (1946)), w hich pre scribes the constitutional mi nimums for venue of Article I I I , § 2, cl. 3 and the Sixt h Amendment, and the statutory require ments of § 3237(a ). 524 U.S. at 6-7. Th a t R o d r i g u ez -M o r eno de a lt w ithan und e rl y ingc ri me of vio le nc e –k idn a

pin g–a nd the c a se 2 befor e us dea ls with drug tr aff icking is a distinction without a diffe renc e as the y are both continuing crimes that occur acr oss g eog raphic boundarie s and § 924(c ) make s car rying a g un a cr ime in relation to both. 6 the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Te nn e sse e , Ward

de pa rt e d fr om the Ea ste rn Di str ic t of Te nn e sse e to p ur c ha se
me tha mph e tamin e in G e or g ia , an d War d in te nd e d to re tur n to the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Te nn e sse e to deliver the drug s to Defe ndant for distribution. Be cause venue for the underlying offe nse–her e drug traff icking–is a

ppropriate in the Easter

n District of Tenne ssee, ve nue is proper for Count Five , namely

the ca rry ing of a fire arm duringand in relation to a drugtraff

icking offe nse in violation of 18 U.S .C. § 924(c). See Rodriguez-More no , 526 U.S. at 281-82. Rodriguez-More no held t hat “[ w]here ve nue is appropr iate for the under ly ing crime” –in Rodriguez-More no the cr ime was kidnaping –so too is venue a p p ro p ri at e “for the § 924(c) (1) of

fense .” Id . There fore , venue is not improper as to both Count Four and Count Five

. 2 I I
. Var iance as to Count One Count One cha

rg ed De fenda

nt with conspiracy

to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of ma rijuana. J.A. at 47. On t he ver dict form, the jury chec ked the “Guilty ” blank a s to Count One, but they also che cked “ 100 kilogr ams or more but less than 1000 kil og ra ms” a s to the a mou

nt of mari jua na . J.A . at 80 . D e fe nd a nt a rgue s th a t si nc e the c ount i tse lf was for 1000 kilogr ams or more of marijuana but the amount deter mined by the jury was be tweenDe fe nd a nt a lso a rgue s th a t, w he re “ ‘i nc on sis te nc ie s . . . ind ic a te that the jur y ve rd ic t w a s a 3 product of ir

rationality ,’ the ve rdict must be set aside.” Def . Br . at 23 (quot i n g Un i t ed S tates v. Johnson , 223 F.3d 665, 675- 76 (7th Cir. 2000)). How ever , Johnson de a lt s pe c if ic a lly wi th a de a th penalty statute and ther e ar e no inconsistencie s in the jury finding s h er e as the re w ere in Johnson wher e two sepa

rate jury forms which ha d some of the exact same questions on both the jury marke d with differ ent answe rs. Id. Although So lor io relied upon Vazquez , an unpubli s h ed opinion, the prec edential va lue of 4 So lor io i s n o ti n qu e s t i o n b e c a u s e i t s r e a s o n i n g i s s o u n d an d t h e c a s e i s c i t e d

f a v o r a b l y b y United States v. Martinez , 430 U.S. F .3d 317 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that the defe ndant could be c onvicted on a conspira cy

count eve n wher e the indictm en t alleg ed g rea ter qua ntities of narc otics under § 841(b)( 1)(A) than found by the ju ry i n i t s specia l verdict whic h corr esponded to lesse r pena lties under § 841( b)(1) (B )). 7 100 and 1000 kilog rams, ther e wa s a “f atal var iance betwee n pleading and proof

. . . .” Def

. Br . at 2
. D e f e n d an t ’ s a r g u m e n th a s b e e n f o r e c l o s e d b y Un ite d S

tat es v . S olo rio , 337 F.3d 580 ( 2003). 3 I n So lor io , o ne c ount of the ind ic tme nt a lle g e d that th e de fe nd a nt “ c on sp ir e d to po sse ss w ith intent to dist ribute 5 kilog rams of c ocaine ,” but t he jury found the de fenda

nt guilty of “c onspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 g rams of c ocaine .” 337 F .3d at 589. So lor io is “ ide nti c a l” to United States v. Vazque z , 49 Fe d. Appx. 550, 2002 W L31367162 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) which So lor io relies upon. So lor io , 337 F.3d at 591. I n both c ases, the indictment c harg ed the 4 defe ndant with one count of conspirac y

involving more than 5 kilogr ams under § 841( b)(1) (A); but having found the de fenda nt guilty of that count, t h e jury

went on to spec ifically

find that the defe ndant conspire d to distribute more than 500 g rams but less than 5 kilogr ams of coc aine, whic h “made out the require ments of § 841(b)( 1)(B ).” Id. Both c ourts held that this did not constit ute a prejudicia l va

rianc e nor was it a constructive amendment, both of which might ha v e c al l ed for
reve rsal of the district court. Id. Nea rly identically

here , though Count One charg ed De fenda nt with one count of c onspiracy inv o lv in g o v e r

1 0 0 0 k il o g r a ms o f

ma r ij u a n a u n d e r § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , th e ju

r y f o u n d th a t D efe ndantTh a t r ule re a ds : “ A d e fe nd a nt may be fo un d g uil ty of a ny of the fo llo wi ng : (1) a n o ff e ns e 5 nece ssarily

included in the off

ense c harg ed; (2) a

n attempt to commit the offe nce char g ed; or (3) an a tte mpt to c omm it a n of

fe ns e ne c e ssa

ri ly inc lud e d in the of

fe ns e c ha rg e d, if the a tte mpt

is a n o ff e ns e in its own right.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 31(c). 8 c on sp ir e d a s to be tw e e n 5 00 g ra ms a nd 10 00 kil og ra

ms o f m a ri

jua na , ma kin g ou t th e re qu ir e me nts under § 841( b)(1) (B ). Then, a s in So lor io and Vazquez , the jury mere ly convicted D efe ndant of a le sse r o ff e ns e ne c e ssa

ri ly inc lud e d in

the of fe ns e c ha rg e d, pe rm iss ibl e un der F e d. R. C ri m. P
. 31(c) (1). Def

endant’ s ability to defe nd himself was lef t unaffe cted, whic h is the underlying c oncer n 5 of both varia

nce a nd constructive a

mendment. Id. at 590. I I I
. Sentencing Def endant’ s rema ining arguments conce rning sentenc ing all rely upon vacating Count One. Counts Five and Nine, Def endant arg ues, m ust be invalidated be cause they are premised upon Count On e a nd t h e s e n t e n c e s h o u l d b e l o w e r e d

a c c o r d i n g l y . S i n c e C o u n tO n e r e m a i n s , t h e 4 8 0

- m o nth statutory minimum stands. Remand for sentenc ing is inappr opriate be cause the statutory minimum is ma ndatory and a district c ourt is not pe rmitted to depart be low it. See United States v. Hoosier , 442 F.3d 939, 944 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I V. F or

the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.