## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2037 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R ONA LD S ELLERS, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08 C R 144 C02

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . P ERC UR I AM . Ro na l d S e l l e r s pl e a de d g ui l t y t o p os se ss in g c o c ain e w ith th e in te n t t o d ist rib u te , see 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(a)( 1), and w as sen ten ced to a p r ison term of16 8 m onths. On app ealhe c hal l enges hi s s entence an d arg u es th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in d en yin g h im a t w o- l eve l r educti on f oracc eptan c e o fr esponsibi l i ty. Speci fi cal l y, he c onte nd s that hi s co oper ati on with law enf or cem ent a nd hi s guil ty plea o utw ei gh two i nci dents2 N o. 09

- 2037 that the c ourti denti fi ed as contin u ed cr i m i nal co nd uct. We a ffi r m. Fr om earl y 2008 thr ough thei r ar re st i n Se ptem ber20 08, Se l l er s a nd Ku rtS chel s ra n a c oca i ne- tr affi cki ng o perati on between Eagl e Riv er, W i sco nsi n, and M i am i, Fl or i da. T h e o p er at ion inv o l v e d w ee kly ca r tr ip s fro m W isc on sin to M i am i to pi ck up co cai ne fro m thei r supp l i er, Luis Capuz zo . S el l er s an d S ch el s woul d then del i ve r the drugs t o a di str ibutornam ed J ohn Doyl e in N as h ville, Te nne ss ee . I fDo y l e w as una va i l ab l e, ho wev er, the tw o m en would r eturn to W i sco nsi n, st or e the drugs a tS c h e l s ’ s r e s i d e n c e , a n d d i s t r ib u t e th e c o c a i n e th e msel ves. I n A ug us t an d Sep tem ber 2008 , l aw -enforcem en t officers or chestr ate d fi ve contr ol l ed buys usi ng a confi denti al i nf o r m an t an d a n under co ve r o ffi ce r . Le ss tha n a m on th aft er th e f i rs t c on tr olle d bu y, Se llers an d Sc h els w er e a rr est ed as they w er e dri vi ng fro m M i am i to W i sco ns i n wi th5 59 g r ams o fc o ca i ne i n the c ar an d a s ho tgun i n the tr unk. Se l l er s coo perat ed after hi s ar re st an d p ro vi ded i nf o r m at i o n a g ains t S ch el s, Ca puz zo , Do y l e, a nd othe r keyi nd i vi du al s. I n Decem ber20 08 h e pl eaded gui l ty to one coun t ofposs ess i on a nd acknow l edged that the a m ount o f co cai ne i nvol ved i n the offense of convi cti on was m or e than 500 gr am s. T he prob ation offi cer p rep ared a p resen ten ce rep ort an d co n c lu d ed th at a red u c tio n for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sibi l i ty w as not w ar ra nted bas ed on t w o post-a rres t i nci dents thatthe proba ti on o ffi cerchar acte ri zed as “co nti nued cr i m i nal co nd uct. ” See U
. S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1. Fi rs t,N o. 09

- 2037 3 th e p r o b at ion offic er ex p lain ed th at Selle rs h ad ca lled h is w i fe, Ca ro l, fi ve days a fterhi s a rr estand i nstr ucted her to conta ct Doy l e in N as h vill e a nd warn hi m to “e m pty hi s bo okc ase s. ” S el l er s had al so tol d C ar olto advi se D oy l e that the pol i ce coul d no t m ake a case aga i ns t h im i fhe k ept qui et. The p ro bati on o ffi cerco ncl ud ed that Se llers had w il lfully attem p ted “to direct or p rocu re an o th erpe r so n t o de st r o y o r c o nc eal ev i den ce ” but deci ded thatan upw ar d adj ustm ent foro bstr ucti on ofj usti ce was notw arrant ed beca use the ev i dence woul d no t ha ve be en “mat er i al to the i ns ta nto ffen se . ” The cal l was, however , reason to deny a re du cti on under § 3E 1.1. Secon d , the p robation officer noted that Sel lers h a d a t t a c k e d a n o th e r p r i s o n e rd u r i n ga c a r d g a me w hi l e deta i ned. W i tn ess es described the vi ol ent, unprovoked natu re of th e attac k, rep orting th at Sell ers re peatedl y punched the o therpri sone r, at tem pted to s l a m h i s b o d y o n th e g r o u n d , a n d c h a s e d h i m d o wn eve n as the v i cti m tri ed to re tr eat
. A ccor dingl y, the proba

ti o n o ffi ce r r ec o m m en ded th atthe di strictc o ur t den y Se l l er s a ny r educti on f oracc eptance. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d o p t e d th e p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r ’ s r e c o mm ended fi nd i ngs. I n declin in g to re du ce S el l er s’ s o ffense l eve l f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty, the cour t r easoned th at his p ost-arrest p hon e call an d his j ailfight w ere c rim in al a c ts w h ich su gg es te d a h eig h te n ed risk of re c id ivi sm and si gnal ed that Se l l er s had not withdrawn fr om hi s c r i mi n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s a s i s r e q u i r e d t o qu a l i fy f o r the r edu cti on. A pp l yi ng a tot alo ffense l eve l o f34 ag ai nst Se l l er s’ s ca teg or y I Icr i m i nal h istor y, the cour t ca l cul ate d4 N o. 09

- 2037

ani m pr i so nm en t r ange of 16 8 to 2 10 months a nd i m posed a sente nce a t the l ow end o fthatr ange. O n ap p e a l Selle rs arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld h av e a w ar d ed h im a re d u c tio n for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sibi l i ty because , he s ays , he e nter ed a guilty ple a e ar l y, d em ons t rated rem orse, an d assisted the gove rnm en t’s in ve st iga tio n . H e a r g u e s th atth e d ist ric t c ou rtcle ar ly erred w he n it conc lud ed that the p hon e call to his w ife and his al ter cati on i n j ai l w er e evi dence ofco nti nued cri m i nal co nd uct suffi ci ent t o n egate w hat he describes as hi s co ns id er abl e co oper ati on with the gov er nm ent. W e re vie w a find in g re ga rd in g a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility for c lea r er ro r, U nited Sta tes v. O tero , 49 5 F
. 3d 393, 40 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , g i v i n gg r e a td e fe r e n c e t o th e s en te n c in g jud ge . U ni t e d St at e s v. Gi l b e r t s on , 43 5 F
. 3d 790, 79 8- 99 (7th C ir. 2006). Altho ug h t i m el y pl e a d in ggu i l tya n d t ru th fu l lya d mi t t i ng th e offen se of conviction an d other r e le v a nt cond uc t are acti ons consi ste nt with acceptance of re sponsibi l i ty, thes e ste ps do notenti tl e a defendant to a re du cti on under § 3 E 1.1
. See U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t . n.3 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bothu n , 42 4 F
. 3d 582, 58 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Evi dence poi nti ng to w ar d a cceptance o fr esponsibi l i ty m ay be ou tw eig h ed by ot h er inc om p at ible a c ts or s ta te m en ts
. See U .S .S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t. n .3. O n e fa c to r th at a j u d ge sh ou ld co ns i deri n mak i ngthi s det er m inati o n i s whethe r the def endan t vo l unt ar i l y e nde d hi s cr i m i na l c o nduc t an d as so c iat ion s. See U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t. n .1(b ); Bothu n , 42 4 F. 3d at 586- 87; U n it ed States v. M cD ona ld, 22 F. 3d 139, 144 ( 7th C ir. 1 994) ( noti ng tha t s entenci ng j ud ge m ayN o. 09

- 2037 5

co ns i derno t o nl y c r i m i nal conducta nd a ss o ci at i o ns r el at ed to c ha r g ed o ffen se s, b utc r i m i na l c o nd uc t an d assoc iations gene rall y). The dis tr i ct c ourtr eas oned tha t Se l l er s’ s pos t- ar re st phone cal l as ki ng hi s wife t o w ar n hi s bi gge st drug buye r th at th e po li ce w ere onto th em de m ons trates th at Sell ers had not v ol untari l y w i thdrawn f ro m hi s cr i m i nal as soc i ati ons. S el l er s a rgues that the phone cal l was hel pfulto th e g ov er n m en t’s inv es tig at ion . A c c or d in g t o S elle rs , his cal l ga ve Do yle a nd hi s o thercr i m i nal as soc i ate s a f al se sense o fs ec uri ty that i nvest i gat i ng autho ri ti es coul d use to thei r advantage

. S el l ers als o argues that an y p ot en tia l loss of ev id en c e r e su ltin g fro m th at ca ll was f aro ut wei g he d b y S el lers’s l at erde sc r i pti o n t o the g o ve r nm en t o fDo y l e’ s r o l e i n the o per at i o n. ButS el lers’s att em pt to spi n the f acts does not change the ess enti al cri mi na l n a t ur e o fthe a c t
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur twa s e nt i tl ed to v i ew hi s po st
- ar r es t pho ne c al l a s an e ff o r t to mai nt a i n h is c rim in al t ies w ith D oy le a n d co n tin u e h is cri m i nal co nd uct. M o r eo ve r, a l th o ug h the g o ve r nm en t di d no t as kf o r, a nd the di str i ct c ourtdi d n ot im pose, an upw ar d adj ustm ent foro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce under U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1, Sell ers’s ph one callto his w ife non eth eless c o uld qu ali fy as ob st ru c tio n u n d er th e g u id elin es . Se eU ni t e d Sta tes v. B oyle, 4 84 F
. 3d 94 3, 9 44 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( upho l di ng increas e for obstru ction ba sed i n p a r t on d efend an t’s p h on e c all to as so c iat e d ire c tin g h im to d es tr oy ev idence)

. The probati on o ffi cerr eas oned thatany evi dence whi chmightha ve b ee n destroy ed as a r es ul t o fthe6 N o. 09

- 2037 cal l would be m ate ri alto a future p ro se cuti on o fDoyl e, no t S el l er s, an d th us was no t m at er i al to th e “insta nt offe n se .” T h at rea so n in g w as m ist ak en ; e vid en c e in Doyl e’ s pos ses si on co uld have affecte d Sel l er s’ s s entence o r l ed to a ddi ti o na l c ha r g es . M o r e i m po r ta nt l y, a de fen d a n t ’ s c o n d u c t th a t o b s t r u c t s o r i mpe d e s n o t hi s o wn case but a “ cl ose l y r el ate d offense” wil l st i l l warra nt an in c re as e. See U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1. I t d oe s not m att er w hetherS el l er s’ s o b st ructi ve conduct w as i m m ate ri alto hi s own guilt or sentenci ng as l ong as i t was m ate ri alto D oy le’s clo se ly r e lat ed d ru g a c tiv itie s. See U nited Sta tes v. M e s s i no , 3 82 F
. 3d 70 4, 7 08 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. I fthe dist ri ct c ourthad used the phone cal l as the b as i s f or ano bs tr uct ioni nc r ea se unde r § 3 C1. 1, S el l er s’ s co ntenti on that he deser ved the acceptan c e r educti on woul d ha ve b ee n e ve n m or e unc o nv i nc i ngb ec au se the g ui de l i ne s t r e a t a n o b s t r uc t i o n a dj us t men t a s p r e s umpti vel y incom patibl e with a r educt ion f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l ity
. See U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t. n .4; U nited S t a t e s v . K r a s i n s ki, 5 4 5 F. 3d 546, 554 (7th Cir. 2008); B oyle, 48 4 F
. 3d at 944. Se l l er s furtherar gues that hi s a tta ck aga i nst hi s fel l ow i nm ate sho uld notbe c on si dered “c onti nued cr i m i nal co n d u c t ” b e c a u s e i t wa s c o mpl e t e l y u n r e l a t e d t o t he offense ofco nvi cti on. Sel l er s, through counsel, h ad re presente d at s entenci ng tha t his behav i orwas partl y a ttr ibutabl e t o gr i efabo ut hi s wife’ s death fro m an o ver dose du ri ng his detent i on. H e a rgues her e that the di str i ct cour t s houl d have co nsi dered t h e a ssa ultan a nom al ous, i sol ate d event. But continued cr i m i nal c on du ct doe s no t ne e d t o b e r e l a t e d t o the o ffe ns e o fc o nv i c t i o n t o s up -N o. 09

- 2037 7 p or t t h e d en ial of a c c ep ta n c e p o i n t s. M cD o na ld, 22 F. 3d at 141. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not e rri n concl ud i ng tha t S e l l e r s ’ s j a i l fi g htwa s i nc o ns i s t e ntwi th a s i nc e r e a c c e ptance ofr esponsibi l i ty f orhi s cr i m i nal co nd uct. A ccor dingl y, S el l er s’ s s entence i s A FFI RMED .

2- 25- 10