The Honor able Na ncy G. Edmunds, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0059n.06 Filed: January

27, 2009 Nos. 06-5790 / 06-5804 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, Plaintif f - Appellee

, v. NAKEI THA JACKS ON, De fe nd an t - Ap pe lla nt.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintif f - Appellee

, v. MA RL OS H I

NE S, De fe nd an t - Ap pe lla nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L FR OM THE U NI TED STA TES D IS TR IC T C OU RT F OR THE WE S TE R N DI S TR IC T O F K EN TU CKY AT BOW LIN GG RE EN

BEFORE: DA UG HTREY and GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ges; EDM UNDS, District Judge *

EDMUND S, District Judge. Nake itha J ackson (“J ackson” ) and Ma rlos Hines (“ Hines”)

wer e convic ted by

a jury of conspira cy

to possess with intent to di stribute and possession with intent to distribute crac k coca ine, i n violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Jackson was sente nced to 360

mon ths of imp ri so nme nt, and

Hi ne s w a s se nte nc e d to 97 mon ths of imp ri so nme nt. On dir e c t a pp e a l,

we affirmed Jackson’s and Hine s’ convictions, but rema nded for rese ntencingin light of United2

States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. W ashington , 166 F. App’ x 823 (6th Cir. 2006). On rema

nd, the district c ourt once ag ain sentenc ed J ackson to 360 months of imprisonment and Hines to 97 months of imprisonment. J ackson a nd Hines now a

ppeal these sentenc es, ar g uing that their sentenc es we re imprope rly enhanc ed base d on judi c ia ll y f ound fac ts contrar

y to those found by the jur y be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, an d fur

the r ar g uin g that, e ve n if

pr op e rl y c on sid e re d, tho se judicially found fa cts wer e cle arly

err oneous. J ackson’ s and Hines’ sentenc es are AFF I RMED. The district c ourt’s fac tual finding s do not incre ase Jackson’s or H ines’ sentenc es bey ond the statutory maxi mums for the cr imes on which the jur y c on vic te d th e m, a

nd the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s a re no t c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. I. Th e fo llo wi ngfa c ts a

re fr om t his Court ’s e arl ie r o pin ion a dd re ssi ngJac ks on ’s and

Hi ne s’ convictions and sente nces. In April 2002, Bur eau of Alcohol, To b acc o and F irea rms (“A TF” ) Special Ag ent David Ha

y es re ceive d information about drug -dea lin g ac t i v i ty in the Russellvil le, Kentucky are a. Ag ent Hay es and three confide ntial informants beg an an inve stigation lasting fr om appr o xim a te ly M ay 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 u n ti l N o v e mb e r 2 , 2 0 0 2 an d inv o lv in g n u me r o u s c o n tr o ll e d b u y s of

c ra c k a nd po wd e r c oc a ine . T he fa c ts a s to Jac ks on are se t out f

ir st. A. Nakeitha Jackson I n the cour se of investig ating another individual, Marce l Edwar ds, the ATF beca me awa re of Jackson’s drug -dea ling a ctivities.An “ e ig ht b a ll” of

c ra c k c oc a ine is a

pp ro xima te ly

3. 5 g ra ms. 1 3 On September

6, 2002, Confidential I nformant Chris Br atche r purchased a n “eig ht ball” of crac k co ca i n e from one Doug las Steven Johns on. J ackson sold this eig ht 1 b a ll to Jo h n s o n , an d Jo h n s o n in tu r n s o ld it to B r a tc h e r . O n Se p te mb e r 8, 2002, Confidential I nformant B ratc her pur chase d approximately 5 g rams of c rac k from J ohnson and J ackson. Both ex chang es were tape-re corde d. Ag ent Hay es obser ved both of these interac tions fr om afa r. Duringthe September

transac tion, Age nt Hay es observe d a gold J eep Cherokee , the ki nd of automobile Jackson drove, pull out of the drivewa y . Ag ent Hay es saw an individual he later identified as Jackson during the September 8 sa le.
Jac ks on wa s arr est ed on Janu ary

10 , 2 00 3. Jac ks on

sig ne d a wa ive r o f h is r ig ht t o rema in silent an d h i s ri gh t to counsel and made a tape -re corde d statement to the police. In this statement, J ackson indicated that he ha d a contac t in Nashville who would supply

him with approx imately

9 ounces of

coca ine ap p ro x i mately

once or twice a wee k. He a lso indicated that Mar los Hi nes would occ asionally buy approxim ately

1 ounce of

coca ine from him at a time. Jackson claimed that Hines had purc hased c ocaine from him one we ek prior t o t h e i nterview . J ackson f urther indicated that Edw ards would buy coca ine from him on an occa sional basis. J ackson stated that the most Edwar ds ever purcha sed fr om him was 1 ounce. Jackson noted that Edwar ds often had a l arg er quantity of cocaine in his possession than t he amount purc ha se d fr om Jac ks on , and that E dw ard s h a d o the r s ourc e s b e c a us e Ed wa rd s f e lt that J a c ks on ’s pr ic e s we re too hig h. Jac ks on a lso ind ic a te d tha t he a nd Ed wa rd s d id no t g e t a lon g pa

rt ic ula rl y we ll d ue to a “ fa lli ngou t” in t

he ir pa st.
On J anuar

y 8, 2003, a g rand j ury

in the Western District of Ke ntucky returne d a SupersedingI ndictment ag ainst Marc el Edwards, Marlos Hines, Nakeitha Jackson, Doug las Ste v e n

Johnson, Calvin Merrell and T ony a Washing ton. Edwards, Johnson, and Mer rell pled guilty

to the char g es ag ainst them contained in the indictment. The g rand jury

char g ed Jackson in Count one with con s p i ri n g, b etwee n April 28, 2002 and Nove mber 2, 2002, to aid a nd abet in the knowin g an d intentional possession with intent to di stribute and distributi o n o f a m ix ture or substanc e containing coca ine base, commonly known as cra ck coca ine, in violation o f 18 U. S.C. § 2 and 21 U. S.C. § 841 (a )( 1)

. Count fi ve c ha rg e d Jac ks on

wi th k no wi ng ly and intentionally

possessing w ith intent to distribute and dis tribution of a mix ture or su bs tanc e c on ta ini ng c oc a ine ba se on Se pte mbe r 6, 200 2, in vio la tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. §§ 84 1( a )( 1) , ( b) (1 )( c ). Count s ix ch arg e d J a c ks on wi th k no wi ng ly and int e nti on a lly possessing w ith intent to di stribute and distributing c ocaine b ase on Septe mber 8, 2002, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), ( b)(1) (B )(iii).4

At tr ia l, Marc e l Edw ard s and Do ug la s Ste ve n Joh ns on , tw o c ha rg e d c o- c on sp ir a tor s; To mmy Ste wa rt , Joh n St e wa

rt and Chr is B ra

tc he r, thr e e c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ants involved in this case ; and Specia l Ag ent David Ha y es testified re g ardingJ ackson’ s involvement in drug dealing . . . . The jury returne d a g uilty

verdic t for Jack s on on Counts one, five, and six of the indictmen t
. T he jury further returne d a spec ial ve rd ic t, fi nd ing be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t that Jac ks on po sse sse d 5 o r m or e g ra ms of coc aine ba se in conne ction with Count one of the indictment. . . .
After a sente n ci n g hear ing c onducted on Nove mber 12, 2003, the district c ourt deter m i n ed that Jackson had possessed 1.5 kilog rams or more of coc aine ba se, the re by makin g his of

fe ns e le ve l th ir

ty -e ig ht a c c or din g to the Dr ugQu anti ty

Ta ble set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c )(1) . The district cour t then applied a f

our leve l e nh anc e me nt t o Jac ks on ’s se nte nc e purs ua nt t o U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 1 o ve r d e fe ns e counsel’s obje ction based on a finding that Jackson was “a t least one of the leade rs of t his criminal activity

and . . . ther e we re f

ive or more participa

nts involved in it .” (JA 480). . . . J ackson’ s final off ense le vel was a

forty -two and his cr iminal hist ory cate g ory was six, pl acinghim in a sentencingrang e of 360 mont h s to life imprisonment. The district court then se nten ce d J ackson to 360 months imprisonment. . . . 166 F. App’ x at 825-27. B. Marlos Hines Th e fo llo wi ngdis c us sio n o f t he fa c ts c on c e rn ingHi ne s’ c on vic tio n and fi rs t se nte nc inga lso come f rom this Court’s earlier

opinion. Marlos Hines, Edw ards’ half-br other, was also identified during the investigation as an individual involved in d ea l i ng coca ine. On May 22, 2002, Hines deliver ed .46 g ra ms o f c ra c k c oc a ine to c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant T ommy Ste wa rt , o n E dw ard s’ behalf

. On May 31, 2002, Hines delivere d 1.15 g rams of cra ck coca ine t o t he confide ntial informant Stewar t ag ain on Edwa

rds’ be half. A c onfidential informa nt also spoke with Hines on the telephone on J uly 3, 2002, reg ardinga shortag e in the a m o u n to f

c r a c k c o c a i n e p u r c h a s e d

f r o m E dw ar d s e ar l i e r

i nt h e d ay. On J anuar

y 8, 2003, the g rand jury char g ed Hines in Count one wi t h co n s p iring betwee n April 28, 2002 and Nove mber 2, 2002 to aid a nd abet in the knowingand intentional possession with int ent distribute and distri b ution of a mix ture or substance c ontaining c ocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C. §5

841(a) (1). Count three char g ed Hines w ith knowingly and intentionally

possessing with intent to dis tribute and dis tribution of a mix ture or substanc e conta ining c ocaine base on Ma

y 31, 2002, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), ( b)(1) (C). The jury returne d a g uilty

verdic t for Hines on Cou n t s o ne and thr ee of the superse ding indictment. The jury also returne d a special verdic t in which it did not fi nd be y on d a re a so na

ble do ub t tha t H ine s p os se sse d 5 or mor e g ra ms o f c oc a ine ba se in connec t i o n with Count one. The district court subseque ntly deter mined that approximately

34.72 g rams of c rac k coca ine and 29 g rams of pow der c ocaine wer e attributable to Hines, y

ielding a base of fense level o f t h irty

acc ording to the Drug Quantity T ab l e set forth in U.S.S .G. § 2D1.1(c )(1) . Hines soug ht a two level reduc tion pursuant to U. S

. S

. G. § 3E1.1 for acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , which the district court re

jected. H ines’ cr iminal hist ory cate g ory was one , pl ac i n g him in a sentenc ing ran ge o f 97 t o 121 months im prisonment. The district cour t imposed a se nte nc e of

97 mon ths

. W ashington , 166 F. App’ x at 827. C . D ir e c t A pp e a l a nd R e m a nd in Li g hto f Booker Jac ks on and Hi ne s b oth

a pp e a le d th e ir

c on vic tio ns and

se nte nc e s. Af

te r a ff ir min g the ir

c on vic tio ns and

the dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of the ir mot ion s for a do wnwa rd a dju stm e nt p ur su a nt t o U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acce ptance of responsibili ty , we r emande d for r esente ncing in light of Booke r . W ashington , 166 F. App’ x at 830, 832-34. D. Re se nt e nc ing on R e m and On rem an d , at their May

26, 2006 rese ntencing s, the district court re jected Jackson’s a

nd Hines’ arguments that the specia l jur y verdic t, this Court’s rema nd, and Booke r

prec luded it from fi nd ingfa c ts that r a ise d Jac ks on ’s of fe ns e le ve l un de r t

he Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin e s a bo ve tw e nty -s ix and that ra ised Hines’ of

fense level under the S entenc ing G uidelines above twenty -four . The district court e x plained that this Court had vacat ed J ackson’ s and Hines’ sentenc es in W ashington not be c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

ha d e rr e d in

fi nd ing fact s th at it the n u se d to c a lc ulate the a pp ro pr ia te6

Guidelines ra

ng e but rather be cause , pre- Booke r , the district court ha d treated the Guidelines a s

m an d a t o r y a s o p p o s e d t o a d v i s o r

y . T h u s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt c o n c l u d e d t h a t : (1 ) p os t- B ooker , the sp e c ia l ve rd ic t mea

nt o nly that th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e mus t no t e xce e d th e statut or y ma ximum ; and (2) this Court’s decision i n W ashington did not preclude it from finding fac ts that placed J ackson’s s en t en ce for c ount one of the indictment within the statutory rang e of 10 y ear s to life imprisonment and place d Hines’ se ntence within the statutory rang e of zero to twe nty

y ear s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

the n r e se nte nc e d Jac ks on and Hi ne s, re lyingon

the same e vid e nc e us e d to support its fact-f

inding a bout drug quantity an d J ackson’ s leade rship role at their orig inal sentenc ings. It once a g ain ca lculated the G uidelines rang e for J ackson to be 360 months to li fe, a nd

once a g ain sentenc ed him to 360 months’ i mprisonment. The district court onc e ag ain ca lculated the Guidelines ra

ng e for Hines to be 97 months to 121 months, a nd once ag ain sentenc ed him to 97 months’ imprisonment. Jac ks on and Hi ne s n owa

pp e a l th e ir

mos t r e c e nt s e nte nc e s. II. “Un der t hi s C irc uit ’s po st- Booke r pr oto c ol, the se nte nc ingc ourt mus t: ( 1) c or

re c tly c a lc ulate the advisory g uideline s entenc ing rang e, (2) consider the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) fac tors, and (3) impose a sentenc e that is suf ficient but not g reater than nece ssary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a) (2).” United States v. Lanesky , 494 F.3d 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2007). Sentence s imposed by the district c ourt are revie wed by this Court for r easona bleness. Se e Un ite d Stat es v . R ita , 5 51 U. S. 3 3 8 , _ _ _ , 1 2 7 S

. C t
. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 5 9 , 2 4 6 5 (2 0 0 7 ). “[ A] s en t en ce i s u n re as o n ab l e wh en t h e di s t ri ct j u d ge fails to ‘consider ’ the a

pplicable Guide lines rang e or neg lects t o ‘consider ’ t he other fac tors listed“A f actua l finding is cle arly

err oneous whe n, though the re is evide nce to support that 2 finding , ‘the re viewing court on the e ntire evide nce is lef t with the definite and f

irm conviction that a mistake ha s been c ommitt ed.’” United States v. Ables , 167 F.3d 1021, 1035 ( 6th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. United States Gy psum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 7 in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and instea d simply selec ts what the j udg e dee ms an appropr iate sente nce without such require d consideration.” Lanesky , 4 9 4 F. 3 d at 5 6 1 (qu o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). “[T] he district cour

t’s deter mination of the quantity of drug s attributable to a defe ndant for sentenc ing pur

poses” is re viewed f

or cle ar e rror . United States v. J ackson , 47 0 F .3 d 29 9, 31 0 ( 6th 2 Cir . 2 00 6) . “ [A] dist ric t c ourt ’s de c isi on c on c e rn inga

de fe nd ant’ s r ole in a

n o ff e ns e ” is a lso revie wed f

or cle ar e rror . United States v. Gate s , 461 F.3d 703, 709 ( 6th Cir. 2006). J ackson and Hines both cha lleng e their ne w sentenc es, ar g uing that (1) the district cour t inc or re c tly c a lc ulate d th e ir

Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e by c on sid e ri ngjud ic ia lly

fo un d f a c ts contra ry to those found by

the jury bey ond a reasonable doubt, and (2) even if proper ly considere d, those judicial l y

found fa cts wer e cle arly err oneous. We first consider whether the district court

corr ectly calc ulated the a dvisory

Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e. A. The D i s tric t Court C orre ctly Calc ulated the Advisory Guidelines Range at Re se nt e nc ing
Hines ar g ues that the district cour t used an im proper

Guidelines ra

ng e at r esente ncing beca use it deviated f

rom the law of

th e ca se established by

this Court i n his first appea l and

ca lc u late d a n a d v is o r

y G u id e li n e s r an g e th a t im p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d a c qu itte d c o n d u c t. J ackson simil arly argues that the district cour t improperly

calc ulated t h e Gu i delines ra ng e by relying on judicial fac t finding r ather than fa cts found by

a jury bey ond a re asonable doubt. Arg uments simil arThe holding in Mende z was re cently

upheld in an en banc decision. See U nited States v. 3 W hit e , ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2008 WL5396246, at *5 (6th Cir. Dec . 24, 2008)( en banc ). In W hit e , we he ld that “[s] o long a s the defe ndant re ceive s a sentenc e at or below the statutory

ceiling set by the jury ’s ver dict, the district court doe s not abridg e the de fenda nt’s rig ht to a jury

trial by looking to other

fac ts, including a cquitted conduc t, when sele cting a sente nce w ithin that statutory rang e.” Id. at ___, 2008 WL 5396246 at *3. 8 to H in e s ’ la

w - o f

- th e - c a s e an d Ja c k s o n ’ s an d H in e s ’ a r g u me n ts a

b o u t ju d ic ia l f

a c t- f in d ing tha t deviates from fac ts f

ound bey ond a rea sonable doubt in a spec ial jury verdic t were rec ently

reje cted by this Court i n United States v. Me ndez , 498 F.3d 423 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 3 1. Law -of-the-Case Doct rine Not Im plicated Simi lar to the de fenda

nt in Mende

z , Hines ar g ues her e that th e l aw -o f-the-ca se doctrine

a pp lie s. Hi ne s is mis take n. Un de r t his do c tr ine , “ fi nd ing s ma de a t on e po int in the lit ig a tio n b e c ome the law of the ca se for

subsequent stag es of that same litigation.” Mende z , 598 F.3d at 426 (internal qu otatio n ma

rk s and c itat io ns om itt e d) . T o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he do c tr ine a

pp lie s, the a

pp e llate court’s de cision “must be re ad ag ainst the bac kdrop of pr ior proce eding s in the case .” Id. (interna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Just as in Mende z , “[a]lt houg h the re mand orde r could have been clear er,” we construe it as say ing what t he max imum base offe nse leve l should have bee n for Jac ks on and Hi ne s “ under a mandatory Guide lines regime ,” bec ause that was what was “suppor ted by a jury ’s beyond-a- rea sonable-doubt f actua l findings.” Id. “So rea d, this langua g e say s nothing about the appr opriate r ang e under the ad v iso ry Guidelines re g ime to be used by the district court at the po st- Booke r

rese ntencing .” Id. 2. Ac quit te d Co nduc t W as P r ope r ly C ons ide r e d atRe se nt e nc ing9

Hines n ex t ar gues that the district cour t calculated an a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e that improperly

considere d acquitted c onduct. S pecif ically , he asse rts that, beca use the jury

deter mined in the specia l jury

v erdic t form that he did not possess more tha n 5 g rams of c ocaine base be y ond

a re asonable doubt, the district court ca nnot consider c onduct on which he was a cqui t t ed to find oth e rw ise . A lth ou g h f

ra me d d if fe re ntl y , Jac ks on

a lso argues that th e dis tr ic t c ourt imp ro pe rl y

e ng a g e d in

jud ic ia l f a c t- fi nd ingpo st- Booke r . S i m ilar ar g uments were reje cted in Mende z . Re lyingon

the Sup re me Cou

rt ’s de c isi on

in Un ite d S tat es v . W att s , 5 19 U. S. 1 48 , 1 57 (1 99 7) , we ob se rv e d tha t “ thi s c ourt ha s r e pe a te dly

he ld since Booke r

that sentenc ing c ourts may still find fac ts u s i n g the pre pondera nce- of-the- evidenc e sta ndard ,” “ that Booke r

did not dist urb W

att s ,” and thu s r e a so ne d th a t “ a

po st- Booke r

sentenc ing

c o u rt m a y c o n s i d e re v e n‘ a c qu i t t e d c o n d u c t ’ i f i tf i n d s f a c t s s u p p o rt i n g t h a tc o n d

u c tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e.” Mende z , 498 F.3d at 426-27. I n Un ite d S

tat es v . W att s , the Supreme Court held “that a jury ’s ver dict of ac quittal does not preve nt the sentenc ing c ourt from c onsidering conduct unde rlying the acquitted c harg e, so long as that conduc t has been proved by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e.” 519 U .S. 148, 157 (1997). W att s prec eded Booke r , bu t t his court has repe atedly

held since Booke r

that sentenc ing c ourts may still find fac ts using the preponde ranc e-of

-the-e vidence standard. See U nited States v. Gates , 461 F.3d 703, 70 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Coffee , 434 F.3d 887, 897-98 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Stone , 4 3 2 F. 3 d 651, 654-55 (6th Cir. 2005) (“ Booke r did not eliminate j udicial fact-finding

. I nstead, the reme dial majority g ave district c ourts the optio n , a f te r c a lc u lati n g th e G u id e li n e r an g e , to s e n te n c e a d e f e n d an t o u ts id e the r e s u lt in g G u id e li n e r an g e . ” )

. And in United States v. Brika , 487 F.3d 450, 458- 60 (6t h Ci r. 20 07 ), thi s c ourt c on c lud e d a ft e r a

tho ro ug h a

na ly sis that Booke r

d id not d i s t urb W att s , a nd the re fo re c on fi rm e d th a t a po st- Booke r

s e n te n c in g c o u rt ma y c o n s i d e r e v e n“ a c qu i t t e d

c o n d u c t ” i f i tf i n d s f a c t s s u p p o rt i n g t h a tc o n d

u c tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e.10

Id. (f oo tno te omi tte d)

. Th is C ourt ’s en banc decision in W hit e a c kn ow le dg e s th a t “

Mende z acc ords wi th t he vie w e xpre sse d b y ou r si st er ci rc uit s th a t Booke r did not alter the W

att s position on acquitted c onduct.” W

hit e , ___ F.3d at ___, 2008 WL 5396246 at *2 (c iting ca ses). As we obse rved in W

hit e , it is n ot i mpr op e r p os t- Booke r for a district court to “to re ly [] on acquitted c onduct in applying a n ad v iso ry Guidelines sy stem.” Id . at ___, 2008 WL 5396246 at *3. Ra the r, “ [i]n th e po st- Booke r wo rl d , t h e r el ev an ts t at u t o ry ce i l i n g i s n o l o n ger

t h e G u i d el i n es ra n ge but the maxi mum penalty authorized by

the United States Code.” Id. Be cause J ackson and Hines

rec eived sentence s “below the statutory ceiling set by

the jury ’s ver dict, the district court [did] not

a br idg e t h e d e f

e n d an t ’ s r i g h t t o a j u r

y t r i a l b y l o o k i n g t o o t h e r f a c t s , i n c l u d i n g a c qu i t t e d

c on du c t, when se lecting a sente nce w i t h i n that statutory rang e.” Id. I nHi n es ’ c as e, t h e “ s t at u t o ry ce i l i n g” of 20 y ear s “set by

the jury ’s ver dict” is well above Hines’ actual sentence of 8 y ear s, 1 month. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( C). I n J ackson’ s case , the “statutory ceiling ” of life imprisonment “ set by the jury ’s ver dict” is well above J ackson’ s actua l sentence of 30 y ear s. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A). T h e d i s t ri ct co urt co m m i t t edn o erro r wh en i tco n s i d er edac qu i t t edco n d u ct o nre s en t en ci n g. “Taking a cquitted conduct into acc ount
. . . is permitted for the limited purpose of de termining the sentenc e for

convicted c onduct, which must be shown by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e.” W

hit e , ___ F.3d at ___, 2008 WL 5396246 at *4. “[T] he district cour t’s consideration of acquitted c onduct in sentencingpasses c onstitut ional muster . . . insofar as enhanc ements based on acquitted c onduct do not increa se a sentenc e bey ond the m axim um penalty provided by the United States Code.” Id. at ___, 2008 WL 5396246 at *5. B. The Di st r ic t C our t’ s F ac tu al F indin gs Ar e No t C le ar ly E r r one ous11

W e n o w a d dre s s J ac k s o n ’s an d Hi n es ’ a rgu m en t s t h att h e d i s t ri ct c o u rt ’s fa ct u al fi n d i n gs about drugquantities and J ac k s o n ’s l eade rship role we re c lear ly err oneous. We beg in with the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dr

ugqu anti ty

fi nd ing s a s to Hi ne s. 1. Quan tity of Drugs Attr ibu ted to Hines At Hi ne s’ re se nte nc ing , th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on sid e re d c ouns e l’ s argume nts , re lie d on the same evidenc e pr es ented at his original F ebrua ry 10, 2004 sentenc ing - - e.g . trial testimony , J ackson’ s statement to Ag ent Hay es, Edwards’ post-trial aff idavit, and testi mony that both Edwar ds and Hines used co- defe ndant Calvin Merre ll as a runner for small a mounts of c ocaine -- a

nd rea ffirme d the drug quantity finding s made at Hines’ orig inal sentenc ing. T hose finding s are as follows. First, as to the pe riod betwe en May 20, 2002 and June 13, 2002, t here wer e seve ral drug deliverie s; some made by Hines and some by others. Be cause the evidenc e showed that Hines wa s involved at both the beg inning and the end of this time period, the district c ourt found all cr iminal activity of Edwa rds and Me rre ll during this time was re asonably for es ee ab le to Hines, there by making him accounta

ble for 13.46 g rams of cra ck coca ine and 660 milli g rams of pow der c ocaine

. Second, none of

drug quantities involved in J uly 2002 would be attributabl e to Hines. Third, consideringEdwar ds’ trial testimony and his post-trial aff

idavit, the district c ourt attributed to Hines the on e -h a lf ounc e of c ra c k c oc a ine (1 4. 17 g ra ms) that E dw ard s te sti fi e d h e fr on te d to Hi ne s b e c a us e this testim ony

showed that they

wer e still working toward a common g oal. As to the one-ha lf ounce of cr ack c ocaine that Edwar ds testified he and Hines had obtained f rom J ackson a

nd split, t he district

cour t attributed to Hines one- half of that one-ha lf, or 7.09 g rams of c rac k coca ine. Fina lly , based on J ackson’ s statement to Ag ent Hay es that Hines f reque ntly purcha s ed drugs f

rom him and hadU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a )(1) (B ) provides that releva nt conduct used to de termine the 4 Gu ide lin e ra

ng e , in c lud e s: (B ) in the case of a jointly undertaken cr iminal activity (a c riminal plan, scheme , endea

vor, or e nterprise undertaken by the def endant in conc ert wi th o the rs , w he the r o r n ot c ha rg e d a s a c on sp ir a c y

), a ll r e a so na

bly fo re se e a ble a c ts a nd omi ssi on s o f o the rs in f

ur the ra nc e of the joi ntl y u n d e rt a k e nc r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y, that occur red dur ing the commission of the offe nse of c onviction, in prepar ation fo r t hat of fe ns e , o r i n th e c ours e of

a tte mpt ingto a

vo id d e te c tio n o r r e sp on sib ili ty of that off ense . . . U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a )(1) (B ). 12 even done s o as recent as a wee k ag o, the district court found that, even if outside the c onspiracy period, this was still releva nt conduct under

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a )(2) and attr ibuted Hines with 29 g ra ms o f p ow de r c oc a ine . T he dis tr ic t co urt th us deter min e d th a t H ine s w ou ld b e a ttr ibute d w ith 34 .7 2 g ram s o f c ra c k c oc a ine and 29 g ra ms o f p ow de r c oc a ine , th e re by arr ivi nga t a

ba se of fe ns e level under

the SentencingGuidelines of 30. ( J A 902-906). Hines challeng es t hese findings, arg uing that the district court fa iled to determine the scope of his ag ree ment and improper ly relied on Edw ards’ post-trial aff idavit that c onflicted with his trial testimony . Eac h of these a rg uments is addresse d below.

a. Di st r ic t C our t D id D e te r m ine Sc ope of Hi ne s’ Ag r e e m e nt Hines first argues that, in c alculating the drug quantity attributable to him, the district court improperly

applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3( a)( 1)(B ) and held him acc ountable for the conduc t of others 4 in the criminal drugconspirac y without first determining the scope of the c riminal activity that Hines ag ree d to join. I n Un ite d S tat es v . Ca mp be ll , 279 F.3d 392, 400 ( 6th Cir. 2002), this C ourt held that § 1B1.3( a)( 1)(B ) “r equire s that the district court make particularized fi nd ing s w ithre sp e c t to bo th13

the sc op e of the de fe nd ant’ s a g re e me nt and the fore seea bility of his co-c onspirators’ c onduct bef ore ho ldi ngthe de fe nd ant a c c ount abl e for the sc op e of

the e nti re c on sp ir a c y .” Con tr ary to H ine s’ arguments here , the district court satisfied the se re quirements. First, the district cour

t did not find Hines acc ountable for all of his co-c onspirators’ c onduct during the entire April throug h November 2002 scope of the conspiracy

. Rather, the district court

ma de pa rt ic ula ri zed fi nd ing s th a t H ine s w a s inv olv e d in the c on sp ir a c y

to p ur c ha se and

dis tr ibute

coca ine both at the beg inn i ng and the e nd of the time per iod betwee n May 20, 2002 and June 13, 2002, during which ti me s ever al deliveries wer e made by Hines and others. Ne x t, the district court fo un d a ll c ri min a l a c tiv ity of c o- c on sp ir a tor s Ed wa rd s a nd Me rr e ll d ur ingthi s ti me to b e re a so na bly fore seea ble to Hines. The district c ourt furthe r found that, based on Edw ards’ trial testimony and his post-trial affidavit, that Edwards a nd Hines were still working towards a common g oal of the criminal conspira cy

at t he ti me they

split a one-half

ounce of cra ck and at the time Edwards f ronted another one-ha lf ounce of cr ack to Hine s. I n Cam pb e ll , this Court observe d that the district court may infer the scope of

a def endant’ s ag ree ment “fr om the conduct of t he defenda nt and others.” Cam

pb e ll , 279 F.3d at 400. That is what the district court did her e. I t examined t h e t i m e p er iod Hines was a ctively involved in the

c on sp ir a c y , it s c omm on

goal, and the c on du c t of Hi ne s’ c o- c on sp ir a tor s th a t w a s r e a so na bly fore seea ble during t hat t ime period. The dist rict court’s finding s as t o the s cope of Hines’ a g ree ment to participate in the char g ed cr iminal conspiracy are not clear ly

err oneous. 2. Edwar ds’ Tr ialTe st im onyand P os t- Tr ialAffida vit Ar e Co nsis te ntI nh i s De ce mb er 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , p o s t -t ri al af

fi d av i t , E dwa rd s av er s t h e f o l l o wi n g: 5 2. Fr om April throug h November 2002, Iwas involved with the purc hase a nd distribution of cocaine base, c ommonly known as c rac k coca ine. During that time period, Mar los Hines and I purcha sed 1/2 ounce of cr ack c ocaine from Na keitha Jackson. Marlos Hines a nd Isplit t he 1/2 ounce of cr ack coca ine. 3. Duri ngthe same tim e pe ri od , o n at le a st o ne oc c a sio n, I“ fr on te d” 1/2 ounce of cra ck coc aine to Mar los Hines. Ig ave Ma rlos the 1/2 ounce of cra ck coc aine without making him pay me for it first. Onc e he sold the cra ck coc aine, he was supposed to pa y me for it. He never

paid me for

the cra ck coc aine. Af

ter that, I ref used to provide c rac k coca ine to Marlos Hi ne s unle ss h e pa id f

or it f ir st. (JA 159). 14 Hi ne s a lso c ha lle ng e s the dis tr ic t court ’s a ttr ibutio n of a ny dr ugqu anti ty

ba se d o n E dw a rd s’ testimon y th a t h e an d H in e s h a d s p li t a h a lf o u n c e o f c r a c k c o c a in e th a t th e y h a d p u r c h a s e d from Jac ks on . In pa

rt ic ula r, Hi ne s argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt imp ro pe rl y

re lie d o n E dw ard s’ a ff

ida vit

aver ring that this occurr ed duringthe April throug h November 2002 time fr am e o f the cha rg ed conspirac y

(JA 159) beca

use it conflicts with his trial testimony (JA 295-298, 307-09, 333, 342-43, 5 346, 350-55). Hine s misconstrues Edwar ds’ trial testimony

. Edwar ds testified t hat he did rec all one instance w here both he and Hine s boug ht a half ounc e of c ocaine from Jackson that they split, but he could not re call the prec ise date. He admitted that he had previously told the gove rnment that he had purc hased c rac k coca ine from Jackson in the summer of 2002. (J A 350). On cr oss-examination, Edwar ds testified that he dealt with J ackson in 2001 or 2002, that he could not g ive a precise date, bu t it wa s p ro ba

bly in t he su mme r of 20 02

. (JA 35 3- 54 ). Thus , the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat th is dr ugtr ans a c tio n o c c ur

re d d ur ingthe tim e fr a me of

the c ha rg e d co ns pir a c y is not

c le arl y e rr on e ou s.15

Hi ne s a lso c ha lle ng e s the dis tr ic t court ’s a ttr ibutio n of a ny dr ugqu anti ty

ba se d o n E dw a rd s’ testimony that he also fr onted Hines a half ounce of cra ck coc aine. In particula r, Hines a rg ues that the district court improperly relied on Edwar ds’ aff idavit a verr ing that there was one instance w here Edwar ds and Hines split a half ounc e of c rac k coca ine that they purcha sed fr om J ackson a nd another ins tanc e wh e re Ed

wa rd s f ro nte d Hin e s a hal f o un c e of c ra c k c oc a ine (JA 15 9) be c a us e it c on fl ic ts with his trial testim ony

(JA 296, 308-309). Contrary to Hines’ arg ument here , there is no conflict with Edwards’ testimony at trial and that in his post-tria l a ffidavit. At trial, Edwar ds testified that he did not sell Hines any

coca ine that he g ot from J ackson. W hen asked whether he boug ht cra ck

coca ine from sourc es other tha n J ackson, Edw ards replied that he did. He further testified that he

ne ve r s old

it t o H ine s b ut r a the r h a d f ro nte d it to h im o ne tim e . ( JA 29 6) . Wh e n a sk e d s pe c if ic a lly whether J ackson w as a sour ce for Hines, Edwar ds testified t hat t here was only one ti me t hat he and Hines split some crac k coca ine that J ackson supplied. ( J A 308-309). T hus, the district court’s finding s attributing to Hines all of t he drug quantity that he and E dwar ds purcha sed fr om J ackson (1 4

. 1 7 g r a m s ) an d h a l f o f t h e dr u g qu an t i t y E dw ar d s o b t a i n e d f r o m an o t h e r s o u r c e an d f r on te d to Hines (7.09 g rams) a

re not c lear ly

err oneous. B. Quan tity of Drugs Attr ibu table to Jackson J ackson c halleng es the qua ntity of drug s that the di strict court attributed to him. I n particula r, J ackson a rg ues that, althoug h the district court is perm i t t ed to estimate the drugquantity to be attributed to him, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12 (2002), it improperly found a drug quantity here that i s n o ts u p p o rt e d b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e . D e s p i t e J a c k s o n ’ s ar g u m e n t s t o t h e c o n t r a r y, t h e dr u g qu an t i t y e s t i m a t e d

b y t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtan d a t t r i b u t e d t o J a c k s o ni s s u

p p o rt e d b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. The re is no cle ar e rror .The district cour t rejec ted the substantially g reater 11.2266 kilog ram drugquantity set 6 out in J ackson’ s Presentenc e Report ( “PSR”). (JA 965, ¶ 55) (ca lculating 9 ounces pur chase d for 44 wee ks as provided in Jackson’s statement to Ag ent Hay es). 16 At J ackson’ s orig inal sentenc ing, the district court hear d testimony from ATF Special Ag ent David Ha y es, the individual to whom J ackson g ave a statement af

ter his ar res t
. Age nt Hay es testified that he ex plained to J ackson at the out set of t he int ervie w t hat t he gra nd jury had cha rg ed h i m w i t h cr a c k co c a i n e o f f e n s e s ; an d

c o n s e qu e n t l y , t h e d i s c u s s i o nw a s a b o u tc r a c k

c o c a i n e . ( JA 832-834, 837-38) . J ackson a dmitted to Age nt Hay es that h e wo u l d usually pick up about nine

ounces a wee k from his source in Nashville and bring it back to Russellvill e, Ke ntucky . Sometimes J ackson ma de more than one trip in a week. (JA 835). J ackson a lso discussed his prices. (JA 838). Ag ent Hay es asked J ackson about Marlos Hines (also known as “ Fr og ”) a nd Marc el Edwa

rds (“ Meat Gre ase” ). Jackson admitted that he had de alt with Hines extensively , and that Hines ha d approa ched him a bo ut obt a i n i n g dr

u g s w i t h i nt h e l a s tf

e w d ay s . ( JA 8 3 6 )

. B a s e d o nJa c k s o n ’ s s t a t e m e n tto Ag ent Hay es, Ag ent Hay es’s testimony , and testimony at trial, the district c ourt found that J ackson

wa s tal kin g a

bo ut c ra c k c oc a ine in h is s ta te me nt t o A g e nt H ay e s a nd that Jac ks on

po sse sse d at le a st 1.5 kilogr ams of cra ck coca ine (there by making his ba se offe nse level thirty -eigh t u n d er the SentencingGuidelines). ( J A 861-65). T he district cour t observed that the highe st offense level

un de r U .S. S.G . § 2D 1. 1 a

pp lie d wh e n a de fe nd ant’ s d ru g -t ra ff ic kin g of fe ns e inv olv e d 1 .5 kil og ra ms of c ra c k c oc a ine . T hu s, the c ourt e sti ma te d, a t th e 9 o un c e s a we e k th a t Jac ks on sai d he usua lly pic ke d u p f ro m hi s sour c e , J a c ks on wo uld have ob ta ine d 1.5 kil og ra ms in six we e ks and

thi s w ou ld pla c e him a t an o ff e ns e le ve l of

38 . ( JA 86 1)

. Mo re ov e r, the dis tr ic t c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d, e ve n if 6 J ackson w as obtaining powder coca ine from his Nashville source , the evidence showed that he had dis tr ibute d c ra c k c oc a ine . T hu s, the dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t Jac ks on

ha d p os se sse d 1 .5 kil og ra msU. S.S. G. § 3 B 1. 1p ro vid e s th a t: 7 B a se d o n th e de fe nd ant’ s r ole in t he of fe ns e , in c re a se the of

fe ns e le ve l a s f

oll ow s: (a) I f the de fenda

nt was an or g anizer or lea der of a cr iminal activity

that involved five or mor e par ticipants or was othe rwise e x tensive, incre ase by 4 le ve ls. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a ) (2002)

. 17 of cr ack c ocaine during the time of the c harg ed conspira cy , attributed that drug quantity to him, and deter mined that his base off

ense le vel would be 38. When re -sentenc ing Jackson, the district cour t relied on the same e vidence , made the sa me finding s, and ar

rived at the s ame conclusion. (JA 915- 19, 930-32). C. Leadership Role Attr ibu ted to Jac kson At his or igina l se ntencing , the district c ourt found that J ackson was at least one of the leade rs of the c rimina l activity

set out in Count one of the indictment and that there wer e five or more participa nts involved. The district court thus applied a four-level enha nceme nt to J ackson’ s sentenc e, pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1( a). (JA 861-65). Ba sed on these f indings, the district c ourt 7

c a lc ulate d Jac ks on ’s of

fe ns e le ve l a s f

o rt y -t wo and his c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y wa s si x, pla c inghim in a sentenc ing rang e under the S entenc ing Guidelines of 360 months to life i mprisonment. (J A 366, 87 0) . Wh e n r e -s e nte nc ingJac ks on , th e distri ct cou rt re lie d o n th e same e vid e nc e su pp or tin g its

ear lier finding about J ackson’ s leade rship role, onc e ag ain ca lculated the G uidelines rang e to be 360 months to l ife, a

nd once a g ain sentenc ed Jackson to 360 months imprisonment. ( J A 915-19, 930- 32).18

J ackson a rg ues that the district cour t erre d when it attributed to him a lea dership role in the criminal conspira cy

and thus applied a

four- l ev el en hance ment when c alculatingthe Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e. In making this determination, the district should consider the exercise of

decision makingauthority , the nature of par ticipation in the commission of the offe nse, the recruitment of acc omplices, the cla imed rig ht to a larg er s h ar e o f t h e fr

uits of the crime, the deg ree of par ticipation in planning or org anizing the offe nse, t he nature and scope of the i lleg al ac tivity , and the de g ree of control and authority exercised over others. There can, of cour se, be more than one p e r s o nw h o qu a l i f

i e s a s a l e a d e r o r o r g an i z e r o f

a c r i m i n a l a s s o c i a t i o no r

c o n s p i r a c y. This adjustment does not a pply to a defe ndant who mer ely sug g ests committing the offe nse. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n. 4 (2002). Her e, the evidence supports the district court’s f inding and fourlevel enha

nceme nt. Testimony

from Ag ent Hay es, Jackson’s statement, and tr ial t est imony show that ( 1) Jacks on freq uen tly purc ha se d la

rg e a mou nts of c oc a ine that he wo uld

the n s e ll t o “middlemen” in the Russellville, Kentuc ky are a; (2) he sold the drug s he had purcha sed in varying amounts to Edwards, Johnson and Hines, who t h en d el i vere d even sma ller amounts to others; (3) J ac k s o ns e t t

h e p r ic e f o r th e dr u g s o f f e r e d f o r s a le to E dw ar d s , Jo h n s o nan d H in e s ; ( 4 ) E dw a r ds testified that J ackson’ s prices w ere often “ too high,” indic at i n g t h at he c laimed a r ight to a la rg er sh are of the fr

uit s of the c ri min a l a c tiv ity ; and (5 ) Jac ks on , E dw ard s, Hi ne s, John so n, and Me rr e ll

we re a ll p art ic ipa

nts in t he c ha rg e d c ri min a l a c tiv ity

. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a ttr ibutio n of a le a de rs hip

ro le to Ja c ks on

wa s n ot c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. IV. Conclusion F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m Jac ks on ’s and

Hi ne s’ se nte nc e s.