In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 03-3928

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAHNERIA P. SINGLETARY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. O1 CR 40076—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

____________

ARGUED JUNE 17, 2004—DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2004

____________

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and MANION and WILLIAMS,

Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Chief Judge. On April 28, 2003, Jahneria

Singletary pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five grams or

more of crack cocaine. She now appeals her sentence, as

well as the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine

made prior to her guilty plea. For the reasons stated herein,

we remand the case for resentencing.
2 No. 03-3928

I. BACKGROUND

Throughout the spring and summer of 2001, Jahneria

Singletary was romantically involved with Prentice Washington. In May 2001, Washington moved into Singletary’s

campus apartment at Southern Illinois University. Washington soon began using both Singletary and her apartment

to facilitate the distribution of crack cocaine that he

purchased in Chicago and sold in southern Illinois. 

According to Washington, he frequently stored crack cocaine and drug proceeds at Singletary’s apartment. Singletary

was aware of this, and even purchased a table for

Washington to use to cut and package the cocaine when she

tired of him using her kitchen table for that purpose.

Washington invited his distributors to come to Singletary’s

apartment to obtain cocaine, and if Washington was not

present, Singletary provided cocaine to the distributors.

When Washington traveled to Chicago to purchase the cocaine, he either used Singletary’s car or a car Singletary

rented for him. Singletary further aided in the drug sales by

providing Washington with a cellular phone to use for his

business calls, wiring drug proceeds to Chicago, and transporting approximately 250 grams of cocaine from Chicago

to southern Illinois on one occasion.

Washington and Singletary’s relationship terminated at

the end of the summer when Singletary became pregnant

with Washington’s baby. By September, Washington was

living in a new house and had a new girlfriend. Around this

time an angry Singletary began planning to rob Washington

of his cocaine and drug money. Singletary eventually recruited her friend, Taffia Cunningham, to be part of the

robbery. Taffia Cunningham then enlisted the help of her

brother, Tyree, and two other individuals. On September 8,

2001, the group took Washington’s girlfriend hostage and

used her to gain entry into Washington’s apartment. In the

chaos that followed, Washington shot and killed Tyree

Cunningham.
No. 03-3928 3

Singletary was subsequently charged with one count of

conspiracy to possess and distribute crack cocaine and one

count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking crime. Five days before her trial was scheduled

to begin, Singletary moved to sever the two counts against

her and to exclude evidence regarding the murder of Tyree

Cunningham from the conspiracy trial. The district court

denied this motion. Three days before Singletary’s trial was

set to commence, she notified the government of her intention to plead guilty to the conspiracy count against her.

On April 28, 2003, the scheduled trial date, Singletary did

plead guilty to one conspiracy count and the government

dropped the remaining charge. Singletary was sentenced to

204 months’ imprisonment based upon the district court’s

findings that Singletary did not qualify for a three-point

sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility and that

her relevant conduct included between 500 grams and 1.5

kilograms of crack cocaine. Singletary now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

Singletary begins by challenging the district court’s

refusal to exclude evidence of Tyree Cunningham’s murder

from Singletary’s trial. Interestingly, Singletary does not

dispute the district court’s ruling on her motion to sever the

two counts against her. Considering that Singletary’s trial

was to encompass both her conspiracy to distribute crack

cocaine, as well as her use of a firearm during the drugrelated robbery of Washington on September 8, any claim

that the resulting death of Tyree Cunninham was irrelevant is without merit. In any case, Singletary’s claim must

fail because when she pled guilty she did not reserve this

issue for appeal and it is therefore waived. See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(a)(2) (“With the consent of the court and the

government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of

guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to
4 No. 03-3928

have an appellate court review an adverse determination of

a specified pretrial motion”); see also United States v.

Sowemimo, 335 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2003); United States

v. Cain, 155 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 1998).

We next turn to Singletary’s two remaining claims which

consist of challenges to the district court’s application of the

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. First, Singletary argues that

the district court erred by not granting her a three-point

sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Second,

Singletary contends that the district court erred by finding

that her relevant conduct involved between 500 grams and

1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. As this Court recently

determined in United States v. Booker, 2004 WL 1535858

(7th Cir. July 9, 2004), the Supreme Court’s decision in

Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL 1402697 (U.S. June 24,

2004), calls into doubt the constitutionality of the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines. See also United States v. Penaranda,

2004 WL 1551369 (2d Cir. July 12, 2004); United States v.

Pineiro, 2004 WL 1543170 (5th Cir. July 12, 2004); United

States v. Montgomery, 2004 WL 1562904 (6th Cir. July 14,

2004). Under Blakely as interpreted in Booker, a defendant

has the right to have a jury decide factual issues that will

increase the defendant’s sentence. As Booker holds, the

Guidelines’s contrary assertion that a district judge may

make such factual determinations based upon the preponderance of the evidence runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment.

Thus, in light of the analysis set forth in Booker, we remand

Singletary’s case to the district court for resentencing.

III. CONCLUSION

Singletary’s challenge to the pretrial ruling against her

has been waived by her unconditional guilty plea. However,

Singletary’s sentence is VACATED and the case will be

REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this Court’s

opinion in United States v. Booker, 2004 WL 1535858 (7th

Cir. July 9, 2004).
No. 03-3928 5

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—8-6-04