Source: https://openjurist.org/899/f2d/465
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:05:14+00:00

Document:
Kathleen Moro Nesi, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Office of the U.S. Attorney, Detroit, Mich., and Janet L. Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Bay City, Mich., for the U.S.
Robert J. Dunn, and C. Michael Gorte (argued), Bay City, Mich., for defendants-appellants.
Before KENNEDY and GUY, Circuit Judges; and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.
(1) they were denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the district court abused its discretion by adding two points to each defendant's base offense level for possession of a firearm during the conspiracy; (3) the district court abused its discretion by finding that Krugielka did not play a minor role in the conspiracy; and (4) the testimony of government witness Jack Ventimiglia should not have been given any weight as a matter of law. The government in its cross-appeal challenges the sentences that the district court imposed, asserting that the district court should have taken a larger quantity of cocaine into consideration in calculating the base offense level, despite the fact that the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants guilty of conspiring to distribute a lesser amount. Finding the defendants' contentions on appeal to be without merit, we affirm the convictions. We remand for resentencing, finding that the district court erred in its calculation of the quantity of cocaine to be considered for sentencing purposes.
The defendants, along with seventeen others, were named in a sixty-three count indictment alleging a drug distribution conspiracy. Moreno, Krugielka, and co-defendants Brad Krugielka, Quinn Hickey, and Donald Ball were tried before a jury, and after a month-long trial, the jury returned a verdict convicting Scott Krugielka of one count of conspiracy to distribute or to possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. Moreno was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute or to possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846, and of three counts of use of a federal communication facility to commit a felony. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b).
The district court sentenced Krugielka to 135 months imprisonment and Moreno to 235 months. Both defendants filed timely notices of appeal. The United States filed a cross-appeal.
The defendants allege that the prosecutor made prejudicial and biased remarks in her closing argument and rebuttal that rose to the level of prosecutorial misconduct and that mandate a reversal. In order for such comments to warrant reversal, the comments must have " 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' " Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2471, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). The comments about which the defendants complain were neither improper nor unfair.
Now, I submit to you, what legitimate business purpose did the other people in this case have for a beeper number? You may have h[e]ard some testimony that Scott Krugielka had a job, but no testimony that he used it for his job, that he needed it for his job.
(Tr. Vol. IX at 19). At the end of the closing argument, defendant Krugielka moved for a mistrial based upon this comment. The district judge very properly denied the motion, ruling that the prosecutor had not shifted the burden or commented on defendant's failure to testify, but had merely "talked about what the evidence was." (Tr. Vol. IX at 38). The prosecutor was not stating her personal belief; she was simply arguing the evidence to the jury. Viewing these comments about beepers in the context of the prosecutor's entire closing argument supports the district judge's ruling that the prosecutor was merely discussing the evidence.
Another thing Mr. Scorsone made reference to a red herring. I think he even said the beeper was a red herring.
The red herring is not the beeper. The red herring is the argument that there are legitimate uses for beepers. There's no doubt about that.
The red herring is that there are legitimate uses for plastic bags, for baking soda and for scales. Yes, that's true, ladies and gentlemen, and nobody is denying that.
The red herring is saying when you put all these things together, along with the cocaine, it means anything but that those are innocuous.
You put these things together, and they're consistent with cocaine trafficking. Those are the tools of the trade of cocaine trafficking.
Sure, sometimes they can be used in other ways, but what does your reason and common sense tell you about how Mr. Hickey used those things?
(Tr. Vol. X at 113-14). No objection was made to this comment at trial. In addition, these remarks were addressed to defendant Hickey, not to Moreno or to Krugielka. Even assuming that the remarks were made in reference to the defendants who bring this appeal, we conclude that they were not improper. Viewed in their proper context, the prosecutor was not, as Krugielka suggests, attempting to argue that there were no legitimate uses for beepers. Indeed, she acknowledged such legitimate uses, but argued that all of the evidence and common sense pointed to the conclusion that the beepers were part of the tools of the trade of cocaine trafficking. She was not attempting to interject her personal opinion; she was merely discussing the evidence.
He's not the government's star witness. He's a criminal. But he's a criminal whose crime is committed in association with other people. Remember that.
He said he wished he had never met the people at the prosecution table, and he never met these people till after April 12th. And what he testified about was the events before April 12th. That's when these gentlemen were his associates.
And in a very real sense, ladies and gentlemen, Jack Ventimiglia is not our witness, the government's witness, he's their witness. He's their associate.
MR. BURNS: Your Honor, I don't like to stand up, but I have to object to her categorizing Jack Ventimiglia as our witness. He was called by the government.
THE COURT: Did you refer to him as their witness?
MR. GORTE: She did, your Honor.
MS. PARKER: I said in a sense he's their witness.
THE COURT: No. In no sense is he their witness. They didn't call him. He was called by the government and cross examined, and that's a terribly inappropriate remark to call him their witness.
(Tr. Vol. X at 145).
In our view, we see no impropriety requiring reversal in the prosecutor's remarks. She was not telling the jury that Ventimiglia was technically a defense witness but, rather, that Ventimiglia was a long-time associate of the defendant and knows whereof he speaks. Although the judge admonished the prosecutor after a defense objection, it is clear from the transcript that the judge did not hear the remark made and only accepted an out-of-context explanation. The prosecutor wisely just returned to her argument rather than belaboring the point.
Defendant Moreno also asserts in this appeal that the testimony of government witness Jack Ventimiglia should have been withheld from the jury as a matter of law. The defendant bases his claim on the fact that Ventimiglia was an admitted cocaine addict during the time of the conspiracy. According to the defendant, Ventimiglia's testimony is therefore unreliable and should not have been admitted. The defendant points out several inconsistencies in Ventimiglia's testimony, and he also relies on the fact that Ventimiglia admitted to suffering the symptoms of cocaine withdrawal after he agreed to testify for the government.
What must be remembered, and is often confused, is that "competency" is a matter of status not ability. Thus, the only two groups of persons specifically rendered incompetent as witnesses by the Federal Rules of Evidence are judges (Rule 605) and jurors (Rule 606). The authority of the court to control the admissibility of the testimony of persons so impaired in some manner that they cannot give meaningful testimony is to be found outside of Rule 601.... Again though, it is important to remember that such decisions by a trial judge to either admit or exclude testimony will only be reversed for a clear abuse of discretion.
Ramirez, 871 F.2d at 584. Likewise, in the case now before this court, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting Jack Ventimiglia to testify. Any inconsistencies in his testimony or any impairment in his perception or recollection properly are questions of his credibility, not of his competency as a witness.
The district court enhanced the base offense levels of both defendants by two points for possession of a firearm during the conspiracy. On appeal, both defendants allege that this enhancement was improper.
On the day of the arrests, shortly after Krugielka had been taken out of the arresting agent's car, the agent found a small leather holster in plain view on the floor of the front passenger side of the vehicle. The car was constructed so that someone in the back seat could have dropped the holster and kicked it forward under the seat. Other than law enforcement officers, no one else had been in the car that day. Six days later, the officer found a gun in the same car while following up an informant's tip that Krugielka had left it there. No other non-law enforcement personnel had been in the car, and the gun fit the holster that previously had been found. The court ruled that this evidence was more prejudicial than probative and did not allow it to be put before the jury. However, the court ruled that the evidence was probative for sentencing purposes.
Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provides that a defendant's base offense level should be raised two levels in the case of evidence of possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense.2 We may not disturb the factual findings that underlie the district court's sentencing decisions unless such findings are clearly erroneous. United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3227, 106 L.Ed.2d 576 (1989).
The district judge concluded that he was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that Krugielka was in possession of a firearm during the time of the conspiracy, therefore making the enhancement of his base offense level proper. Pursuant to the guidelines, possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense establishes a presumption that the possession is connected to the offense. The defendant can only overcome this presumption if he can show that "it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." Application Note 3 to Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). Krugielka has offered no evidence to rebut this presumption, and we cannot say that the district court's conclusions were clearly erroneous.
In defendant Moreno's case, the district court applied the enhancement provision based upon evidence that Moreno possessed automatic weapons at his temporary residence during the time that the conspiracy was ongoing. This evidence was part of the presentence investigation report submitted to the court by the probation department. In addition to this report, witnesses testified that Moreno once fired shots near a co-conspirator's head to awaken him after a drug overdose. Although the defendant objected to the hearsay evidence contained in the report, he conceded at sentencing that he had no evidence to refute it.
Moreno cites cases in which courts of appeals have ruled that an enhancement for possession of a firearm was improper, but the cases that he cites are inapposite. For example, in United States v. Missick, 875 F.2d 1294 (7th Cir.1989), there was no evidence that the defendant was ever in possession of a firearm. Similarly, in United States v. Vasquez, 874 F.2d 250 (5th Cir.1989), the court held that upward adjustment was improper where the defendant was convicted of purchasing drugs from undercover agents, and the only gun was in the defendant's house, which was several miles away. There was absolutely no evidence to connect the gun to the transaction. Here, there is evidence that Moreno possessed weapons during the time of the conspiracy.
Defendant Krugielka contends that the district court erred by not classifying his role in the conspiracy as minor, which would have resulted in a reduced base offense level. Section 3B1.2 of the guidelines provides that the offense level of a defendant can be decreased by four levels if the court determines that the defendant's role in the criminal activity was minimal, and by two levels if the defendant's role was minor. The commentary to this section describes a minimal participant as one who is among the "least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group." Application Note 1 to Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2. A minor participant is described as one "who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal." Application Note 3 to Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2.
I wouldn't have any trouble going to the moon with him. If he was Moreno's driver, he knew everything Moreno knew. I mean, he knew about a lot when it gets right down to it. I find that from the evidence I heard at the trial.
But he was Moreno's right-hand man as far as being handy. It doesn't put him in the leadership role. He was a driver, as far as the trial was concerned.
(Sentencing Tr. at 29). Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the district court's findings with respect to Krugielka's role in the conspiracy were not clearly erroneous.
The district court calculated the base offense level for the defendants for a conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine, despite the fact that the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the conspiracy involved over five kilograms of cocaine. The district court reasoned that it was bound by the jury's verdict that stated a lesser quantity. The United States appeals the sentences that the district court imposed, arguing that the provisions of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b) are merely penalty provisions and not provisions that establish separate offenses.3 Other circuits that have been faced with the task of interpreting section 841(b) have reached this conclusion, although no court has dealt with the specific issue presented here.
For example, in United States v. Wood, 834 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir.1987), the Eighth Circuit concluded that section 841(b) is a penalty provision and that it does not state distinct offenses. The court held that the enhanced sentencing provisions could be considered in sentencing in the absence of a specific jury finding as to quantity. Although the court was presented with arguments by the defendant that the amount of cocaine required to trigger the provisions of section 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) was neither properly charged in the indictment nor tried to the jury, the court affirmed the sentences without addressing either issue. The court ended its analysis with the conclusion that section 841(b) was nothing more than a sentence enhancement provision, which means that it was unnecessary for a jury to make a special determination as to quantity.
The leading case from the Third Circuit is likewise not instructive on the precise issue before this court. In United States v. Gibbs, 813 F.2d 596 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 822, 108 S.Ct. 83, 98 L.Ed.2d 45 (1987), the court held that section 841(b) was a penalty provision, and that the only requirement was that the indictment put the defendant on notice of the amount of drugs being charged and that the charge may give rise to an enhanced penalty. The amount of marijuana involved was only relevant to the sentence imposed, and did not constitute an element of the offense. However, the court in Gibbs did not reach the question of the relevance of specific jury findings as to quantity.
We agree with the Eighth and the Third Circuits that section 841(b) sets forth penalty provisions only and not separate "lesser included" offenses. As such, the sentencing judge, not the jury, has the prerogative to make a determination of the quantity of drugs involved in the scheme and to sentence accordingly. In McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act, which provides that anyone convicted of certain enumerated felonies is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence if the sentencing judge determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant "visibly possessed a firearm" during the commission of the offense. The petitioners argued that the possession of a firearm was an element of the offense that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court disagreed, holding that the Act was merely a sentencing consideration. As such, a determination by the judge that the evidence established possession of a firearm by a preponderance of the evidence would be sufficient to satisfy due process. Because section 841(b) is a penalty provision only, a determination of the quantity of cocaine by a preponderance of the evidence likewise satisfies due process in this case. The district court is not bound by the jury's verdict in this case despite the jury's finding as to the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy or scheme. The district court committed error both by treating 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b) as a statute involving lesser included offenses and by considering itself bound at sentencing by the jury's findings.
The key words of limitation in the guideline are the words "offense of conviction." The offense of conviction was conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine. By statutory definition, this includes a range of cocaine between 500 grams and 5 kilograms. The lesser does not include the greater. Activity in connection with 5 or more kilograms could not logically occur during the lesser offense nor be in furtherance of it.
... Conduct that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range. The range of information that may be considered at sentencing is broader than the range of information upon which the applicable sentencing range is determined.
Commentary to Guidelines Sec. 1B1.3. This commentary indicates that the judge has the discretion to consider any and all evidence of the quantity of drug involved. The defendant need not be convicted of conspiring to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine for the judge to be able to make such a determination at sentencing. This court has held that conduct beyond the count of conviction may be considered at the sentencing level. United States v. Sailes, 872 F.2d 735 (6th Cir.1989), involved a conviction pursuant to a guilty plea. There was evidence that greater quantities of drugs were involved than were admitted by the defendant, and this court held that this evidence could be considered in calculating the sentence.
The defendants argue that for the court to consider evidence of quantities of drugs in excess of five kilograms in light of the jury's findings would be tantamount to sentencing the defendants for conduct for which they had been acquitted. Because we hold that the quantity of cocaine is not an element of the offense of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, we need not address the question of whether a trial judge, at sentencing, can consider factors involved in counts on which a defendant has been acquitted.
The defendants' convictions are AFFIRMED and this matter is REMANDED for resentencing.
The conduct that is relevant to determining the applicable guideline range includes that set forth below.
(5) any other information specified in the applicable guideline.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.