Source: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-stott
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 14:38:05
Document Index: 527292624

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 1952', '§ 924', '§ 1952', '§ 924', '§ 1952', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 1952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 924']

U.S. v. Stott, 245 F.3d 890 | Casetext
U.S. v. Stott
245 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2001)
U.S.v.Stott
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh CircuitMar 26, 2001
Nos. 99-2962, 99-3588 and 99-3781.
Decided March 26, 2001.
Robert W. Lewis (Argued), Gary, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.
N.C. Deday LaRene (Argued), Bethesda, MD, for Defendant-Appellant.
After the arrest, Mr. Gaughan and Kulikowski were transported to the Munster Police Department. There Mr. Gaughan was interviewed by Agent King and others. At that time, Gaughan said that he had sold 20 to 30 kilograms of cocaine to Bonner in the past. He also gave the agents information concerning his supply source.
At some point, the agents discovered that Mr. Gaughan was a diabetic and suffered from cardiovascular disease. According to Mr. Gaughan, he informed officers about his condition and also told them that he was experiencing cramps, nauseousness, clamminess and shortness of breath. Despite this information, the officers refused to retrieve Mr. Gaughan's medication from his car or to contact a physician until he had signed a waiver of his rights. The officers' recollection differed from Mr. Gaughan's. The officers testified that, although they knew of Mr. Gaughan's conditions, he was asked if he was all right and if he needed anything; Mr. Gaughan responded that he did not.
Mr. Stott, Mr. Gaughan, Mr. Ford, Anderson, Bonner and Kulikowski were all indicted on multiple counts relating to their alleged drug distribution activities. Anderson and Bonner both pleaded guilty, and Bonner agreed to testify for the Government against the other defendants. Mr. Stott, Mr. Gaughan and Mr. Ford elected to stand trial.
Count I: (All defendants) Conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver more than five kilograms of cocaine, and to possess with intent to distribute and distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, Summer 1997-December 15, 1997, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Count II: (All defendants) Possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, December 8, 1997, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Count III: (All defendants) Possession with intent to distribute cocaine, December 8, 1997, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Count IV: (All defendants) Interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity involving possession with intent to distribute cocaine, December 8, 1997, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2
Count V: (Ford, Gaughan, Stott, Kulikowski) Carrying a firearm during and in relation to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, December 9, 1997, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2
Count VI: (Gaughan, Kulikowski) Interstate travel in aid of an unlawful activity involving the possession with intent to distribute cocaine, December 15, 1997, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2
Count VII: (Gaughan, Kulikowski) Carrying a firearm during and in relation to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, December 15, 1997, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2.
At trial, Agent King testified that Mr. Gaughan made a statement after his arrest in which he admitted that he had supplied Bonner with cocaine on 20 to 30 occasions. According to Agent King, Mr. Gaughan also said that his purpose in meeting Bonner in Indiana was to receive payment for cocaine that he had given to Bonner to sell on consignment.
The jury returned different verdicts against each defendant. Mr. Stott was convicted on Count IV (interstate travel in aid of an unlawful activity, December 8, 1997). The jury convicted Mr. Gaughan on Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute), Count III (possession with intent to distribute cocaine, December 8, 1997), Count IV and Count VII (carrying a firearm during and in relation to the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, December 15, 1997). Mr. Ford was convicted on Count II (possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, December 8, 1997), Count III, Count IV and Count V (carrying a firearm during and in relation to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, December 9, 1997). The district court then proceeded to sentencing.
A. Trial Issues 1. Insufficiency of the evidence against Mr. Stott
Mr. Stott was charged with violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, both as a principal and as an aider and abettor. He contends that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, Mr. Stott maintains that Bonner's testimony was conflicting and unreliable and, therefore, was not sufficient to support his conviction. Mr. Stott also claims that his conviction for violating the Travel Act is inconsistent with his acquittal on all of the other counts. We address each argument below.
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail of any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to —
(A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. . . .
With respect to his first argument, Mr. Stott claims that Bonner's testimony was often vague and points out that Bonner never testified at trial that Mr. Stott was a customer of his. Thus, Mr. Stott claims, Bonner's testimony is not credible and is insufficient to support the conviction. However, it is not the role of the appellate court to question the jury's credibility determinations. See United States v. Durham, 211 F.3d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Alcantar, 83 F.3d 185, 189 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Questions of witness credibility are reserved for the jury, and its assessments will not be second-guessed by an appellate panel."). We shall not find a witness' testimony insufficient to sustain a conviction because it might have omitted some details or might be characterized as vague; we shall reverse a jury verdict only if the testimony was incredible as a matter of law. See United States v. Griffin, 194 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1044, 120 S.Ct. 1546, 146 L.Ed.2d 358 (2000). To meet this standard, "a defendant must show that testimony was . . . contrary to the laws of nature or unbelievable on its face." United States v. Scott, 145 F.3d 878, 883 (7th Cir. 1998). Mr. Stott has not met this burden with respect to Bonner's testimony, and, consequently, we shall not overturn the jury's verdict.
Mr. Gaughan maintains that his due process rights were violated when the Government failed to provide Agent King's grand jury testimony to him prior to the suppression hearing on his in-custody statements. According to Mr. Gaughan, the Government had a duty to provide the material prior to the suppression hearing pursuant to the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We set forth below the facts relevant to Mr. Gaughan's contention.
Prior to trial, Mr. Gaughan moved to suppress this statement on the ground that agents coerced the statement from him by exploiting his serious medical condition. At the suppression hearing, Mr. Gaughan introduced testimony from medical experts explaining that at the time of his arrest he was taking multiple medications for both diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Mr. Gaughan testified that, as the officers approached the car to arrest him, he stated: "Look, I'm a heart patient and I'm diabetic. I haven't had may [sic] medication this evening yet." Suppression Hearing Transcript ("Supp.Tr.") at 35. After his arrest, he repeatedly told officers that he did not feel well and asked for his medication; the agents, however, refused to provide him with his medication until he answered their questions and made recorded telephone calls to his supplier.
The agents present during the interview contradicted Mr. Gaughan's version of events. Specifically, Officer Thomas Stipanich testified that, during the course of questioning Mr. Gaughan, he became aware of Mr. Gaughan's medical conditions. Then, according to the officer, "[w]e asked him if he needed any immediate medical attention. He told us no, that he does take pills and things like that for him. [He] [d]id not request any medical assistance at all." Supp. Tr. at 72. DEA Agent Maurice King also testified at the suppression hearing. Agent King recalled that Mr. Gaughan's medical condition came up and that "he was offered — he was asked whether he needed anything. And he basically said no, some water." Supp. Tr. at 120. Finally, DEA Agent Tom Decanter testified that he had observed that Mr. Gaughan looked nervous during his interview. At that point, Agent Decanter inquired whether Mr. Gaughan was okay. Mr. Gaughan then informed the officers of his medical condition. Like the other officers who testified, Agent Decanter stated that Mr. Gaughan was asked if he needed anything and that Mr. Gaughan responded that he did not.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress. The court rejected Mr. Gaughan's arguments that the statement was coerced and allowed the statement to be used at trial. It stated:
The Defendant did not ask the arresting officers for his medication or for medical assistance.
The Court further finds that the statements that this — that the Defendant seeks to suppress were made knowingly and voluntarily, and not as the result of coercion, breach of promises or lack of medical assistance and medication. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied.
On appeal, Mr. Gaughan argues that the rule of Brady v. Maryland applies to suppression hearings and, in these circumstances, required the Government to furnish Agent King's grand jury testimony prior to the suppression hearing. Because Mr. Gaughan did not present this argument to the district court, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Brumley, 217 F.3d 905, 909 (7th Cir. 2000).
In United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), the Supreme Court explained the criteria for establishing "plain error." First, the error must be "plain." The court explained that, properly understood, "`[p]lain' is synonymous with `clear' or, equivalently, `obvious.'" Id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. It is inappropriate, therefore, to find plain error when current law is unsettled. See, e.g., United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109, 1114 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Klinger, 128 F.3d 705, 712 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1435 (4th Cir. 1993). Second, the error must affect "substantial rights." Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In order to meet this burden, "[n]ormally, . . . the defendant must make a specific showing of prejudice. . . ." Id. at 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Finally, the error must "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770. According to the Court, this last requirement will always be met if "a plain forfeited error . . . cause[d] the conviction or sentencing of an actually innocent defendant"; however, it was not willing to define this last element strictly in terms of actual innocence. Id. With these standards in mind, we turn to Mr. Gaughan's Brady claim.
In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Since Brady, the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose such information has been more sharply refined in several important respects: The duty is applicable regardless of whether there has been a request by the accused, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, see United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); and the duty applies to evidence known to police investigators even if unknown to the prosecutor, see Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). See also Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). However, a Brady violation only occurs if "material" evidence is withheld, that is "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375. Furthermore, "[a]s long as ultimate disclosure is made before it is too late for the defendants to make use of any benefits of evidence, Due Process is satisfied." United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 291 (7th Cir. 1979).
We find it unnecessary to decide whether Brady applies to suppression motions because it is clear that the district court did not commit plain error by not applying Brady here. Although, as noted above, the rule of Brady has been refined in several respects, the Supreme Court has not had the occasion to determine whether this rule requires disclosure of impeachment evidence prior to a suppression hearing. Similarly, we have not had an opportunity to focus definitively on this issue. Mr. Gaughan points to United States v. Veras, 51 F.3d 1365 (7th Cir. 1995), as support for his argument that the issue has been resolved in favor of extending Brady disclosure requirements to suppression hearings. In Veras, the defendant had moved for a new trial based on the government's failure to disclose impeachment evidence concerning one of the government's primary witnesses; the witness had testified both at a suppression hearing and at trial. The district court denied the motion for a new trial on the ground that the undisclosed information was not material because it was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). The district court concluded that, "[b]ecause the suppressed evidence would not have affected the outcome of the suppression hearing or the trial, defendant's due process rights were not violated and his motion for a new trial pursuant to Brady and Giglio [v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)] is denied." Id. at 1375. In reviewing the district court's rationale for denying the new trial motion, we stated that "[w]e [found] no fault with the district court's holding." Id.
Furthermore, there is no consensus among the other circuits as to whether Brady should apply to suppression hearings. The Ninth Circuit has held explicitly that it does, at least with respect to some categories of suppression hearings. See United States v. Barton, 995 F.2d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 1993) ("[W]e hold that the due process principles announced in Brady and its progeny must be applied to a suppression hearing involving a challenge to the truthfulness of allegations in an affidavit for a search warrant."). The Fifth Circuit, too, has applied Brady disclosure requirements to a motion to suppress, see Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950, 965-66 (5th Cir. 1990), vacated on other grounds, 503 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 1463, 117 L.Ed.2d 609 (1992); however, the undisclosed evidence in that case was found to be immaterial, see id. at 966. The Fourth Circuit has taken an approach similar to the one we took in Veras, assuming without deciding that Brady applies to suppression hearings. See United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070, 1077 (4th Cir. 1993) ("Even if Brady were applicable in the context of a pretrial suppression hearing, application of the law to the facts of the instant case would not require a different result. . . . In light of the inconsequential nature of the Brady case to these proceedings, we assume arguendo but decline to address definitively on the merits the issue of whether Brady should call for disclosure of material evidence at pre-trial suppression hearings."). The District of Columbia Circuit however, has expressed its doubts as to whether Brady applies to suppression hearings. See United States v. Bowie, 198 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Focusing on the same language as the Government, that circuit stated: "[I]t is hardly clear that the Brady line of Supreme Court cases applies to suppression hearings. Suppression hearings do not determine a defendant's guilt or punishment, yet Brady rests on the idea that due process is violated when the withheld evidence is `material either to guilt or to punishment.'" Id. at 912 (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194).
In summary, we cannot say that the law is clear on the question of whether Brady should apply to suppression hearings. There is no clear statement on the issue from either the Supreme Court or this court, and there is no prevailing national standard. Because the law concerning Brady's application to suppression hearings is not "clear" or "obvious," we cannot find plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770; see also United States v. Pandiello, 184 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lindsey, 123 F.3d 978, 985 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mims, 92 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 1996).
However, we have, in the present case, an even more compelling reason to reject Mr. Gaughan's Brady claims. To meet the plain error standard, Mr. Gaughan must establish that the error "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Olano, 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770. We do not believe that this criterion has been satisfied. In the present action, it is undisputed that the Government did not produce Agent King's grand jury testimony prior to the suppression hearing on Mr. Gaughan's post-arrest statements, the time in the usual course of judicial proceedings that the evidence would have been most useful to Mr. Gaughan. However, the record shows that the grand jury testimony was disclosed prior to the admission of Mr. Gaughan's statement into evidence at trial and, therefore, at a time when Mr. Gaughan's counsel still had the option of asking the district court to reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress. Indeed, the record not only establishes that the material was in the hands of the defense at this time, but also that it was used by the defense to cross-examine Agent King and to undermine his credibility. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the Government's failure to disclose Agent King's grand jury testimony prior to the suppression hearing "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings." Consequently, Mr. Gaughan has not established that the Government's failure rose to the level of "plain error."
R.295, Inst. 34A. Mr. Gaughan contends that this instruction improperly highlights "fronting" as a method by which conspiracy may be proven. We review a claim of instructional error for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Aldaco, 201 F.3d 979, 989 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280, 291 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1024, 119 S.Ct. 2371, 144 L.Ed.2d 774 (1999).
The district court's instruction relied upon our opinion in United States v. Ferguson, 35 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 1994). In that case, we wrote that "[t]he repeated `fronting' of cocaine, alone, has been held sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant had knowingly joined a distribution conspiracy." Id. at 331. The principle stated in Ferguson continues to be the law of this circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 213 F.3d 409, 415 (7th Cir. 2000) ("We have held that an ongoing relationship involving numerous purchases and the fronting of drugs indicates the existence of a conspiracy."), cert. denied, 2001 WL 135828 (Feb. 16, 2001). Thus, the district court's instruction was a correct statement of the law. "If the instructions are adequately supported by the record and are fair and accurate summaries of the law, the instructions will not be disturbed on appeal." United States v. Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 956 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1277, 120 S.Ct. 2746, 147 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2000); see also Aldaco, 201 F.3d at 989; United States v. Wimberly, 79 F.3d 673, 676 (7th Cir. 1996). Mr. Gaughan has not argued that the fronting instruction was inadequately supported by the record, and we believe that it was a fair and accurate summary of the law. Accordingly, we shall not vacate Mr. Gaughan's conviction on the ground that this instruction tainted his trial.
Mr. Ford first challenges his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine or cocaine base. As described above, Bonner had arranged to meet Mr. Ford on December 8, for the purpose of conducting a sale of cocaine and cocaine base. However, before the exchange took place, Mr. Ford became aware that law enforcement was present and the officers on the scene arrested Mr. Ford before he took actual possession of the drugs. Mr. Ford contends that this lack of actual possession precludes a conviction for possession with intent, which requires a defendant to have either dominion or control over the drugs at issue. In the district court, Mr. Ford moved for an acquittal on this basis. However, the district court rejected Mr. Ford's argument and, in a post-conviction ruling, explained that Mr. Ford's conviction could be sustained on the ground that he had aided and abetted Bonner's possession of the cocaine.
When considering a criminal defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. We shall reverse a conviction only if no rational trier of fact could have found the crime's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1033, 120 S.Ct. 559, 145 L.Ed.2d 435 (1999); United States v. Gibbs, 61 F.3d 536, 537 (7th Cir. 1995). However, any questions of law raised by Mr. Ford's challenge are reviewed de novo. See United States v. Hoogenboom, 209 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Irwin, 149 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 1998).
We believe the law and the record support the district court's determination that Mr. Ford aided and abetted Bonner's possession of cocaine and cocaine base. The aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, states: "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." Id. § 2(a). To be convicted as an aider and abettor, it must be shown that Mr. Ford associated himself with the activity at issue and that he tried to make the activity succeed. See United States v. Heath, 188 F.3d 916, 921 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Coleman, 179 F.3d 1056, 1061 (7th Cir.) ("To sustain the conviction under a theory of aiding and abetting, we must find that the government proved that Coleman knowingly participated in the transaction as something he wished to bring about and that he sought by his actions to make it succeed.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 957, 120 S.Ct. 387, 145 L.Ed.2d 302 (1999).
We cannot accept the Government's arguments for several reasons. First, the Government's position is premised on a conspiracy theory, but Mr. Ford was not convicted of conspiracy. Second, the Government's argument implies that aiding and abetting is a lesser included offense of conspiracy, however, in the context of a federal drug prosecution, it is not. See United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 14-15, 115 S.Ct. 382, 130 L.Ed.2d 225 (1994). When proof of one crime requires proof of an element not necessary to prove a second crime, the first crime is not a lesser included offense of the second. See, e.g., Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989). In this type of proceeding, to win a conviction for aiding and abetting the Government must prove an element not necessary to prove conspiracy: the existence of an overt act by the defendant. Compare Lanzotti, 205 F.3d at 956 ("Under federal law, the crime of aiding and abetting requires knowledge of the illegal activity that is being aided and abetted, a desire to help the activity succeed and some act of helping." (emphasis added)) with United States v. Hunte, 196 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[C]onspiracy liability does not require evidence of an overt act by the defendant."). Because aiding and abetting is not a lesser included offense of conspiracy, the Government's evidence showing the existence of a conspiracy does not automatically demonstrate that Mr. Ford aided and abetted Bonner.
A. Front means to — you receive the merchandise without paying all the money or any of the money. You pay the money later but you get the merchandise first.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The term "in relation to" is "expansive" and means that "the gun at least must facilitat[e], or ha[ve] the potential of facilitating, the drug trafficking offense." Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 237-38, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Haynes, 179 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.) (quoting Smith), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 957, 120 S.Ct. 386, 145 L.Ed.2d 301 (1999). A conviction under § 924(c)(1) is inappropriate if "the firearm's presence is coincidental or entirely unrelated to the crime." Smith, 508 U.S. at 238, 113 S.Ct. 2050 (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Taylor, 31 F.3d 459, 465 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Smith). However, "if the drugs and gun are together in the same place it is nearly an inescapable conclusion that they satisfy the in relation to prong of § 924(c)(1)." United States v. Pike, 211 F.3d 385, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Molina, 102 F.3d 928, 932 (7th Cir. 1996)).
We believe that, given the circumstances described above, the jury could conclude reasonably that Mr. Ford possessed the gun in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Mr. Ford knew Bonner only as his supplier. Furthermore, he knew that Bonner's desire for the weapon arose from the fact that drugs were taken from Bonner's apartment. In these circumstances, the presence of the gun could be considered by the jury as not merely coincidental or unrelated to Mr. Ford's drug trafficking. Instead, the jury was entitled to conclude that Mr. Ford provided the gun to Bonner, his supplier, for Bonner's protection as well as the protection of Bonner's cocaine, and that the weapon found in Mr. Ford's car therefore was related to his drug trafficking offense. We therefore affirm Mr. Ford's conviction on this count. 4. Issues common to Mr. Ford and Mr. Gaughan
It is important to note that Mr. Ford's challenge addresses only the "in relation to" prong of § 924(c)(1), not the "uses or carries" prong. Speaking to the "use" prong, the Supreme Court has held that the "inert presence" or "storage" of "a firearm, without more, is not enough to trigger § 924(c)(1)." Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 149, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Accordingly, we have reversed convictions where the record did not convince us that the defendant used a firearm as defined in Bailey. See, e.g., Stanback v. United States, 113 F.3d 651, 654-57 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that a gun resting on a table where drugs were present was not "used"); United States v. Holmes, 93 F.3d 289, 293-96 (7th Cir. 1996) (reversing conviction when jury might have relied on evidence that did not show actual use). Here, however, Mr. Ford does not challenge the jury's finding that he "used" or "carried" the gun, only that his use was not "in relation to" his drug crimes.
Mr. Ford and Mr. Gaughan raise jointly a claim of instructional error. They argue that the district court's jury instruction regarding vicarious liability for the acts of coconspirators, pursuant to Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), was erroneous. The instruction, they claim, failed to convey to jurors that they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the substantive offense was committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of or as a natural consequence of the conspiracy. Although trial counsel objected to the Pinkerton instruction in the district court, his objections were only of a general nature, and he did not raise this particular argument. Thus, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Cooke, 110 F.3d 1288, 1293 (7th Cir. 1997) ("Although Cooke objected to instruction 22, he did so on grounds other than those asserted here. Accordingly, we review for plain error."); United States v. Roth, 860 F.2d 1382, 1390 (7th Cir. 1988) ("An objection that does not point out the problem in the instruction is insufficient because it does not give fair prospect of timely correction.").
The court's Pinkerton instruction stated:
A conspirator is responsible for offenses committed by his fellow conspirators if he was a member of the conspiracy when the offense was committed and if the offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Therefore, if you find a defendant guilty of the conspiracy as charged in Count 1 and if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that while that defendant was a member of the conspiracy, his fellow conspirators committed the offenses charged in Counts 2, 3, 4, and/or 5, then you should find him guilty of Counts 2, 3, 4, and/or 5.
United States v. Sandoval-Curiel, 50 F.3d 1389, 1394-95 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here the instruction neither focused the jury on "whether [the crime] was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy" nor instructed the jury that this element must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. We previously have rejected Pinkerton instructions on similar bases. See United States v. Elizondo, 920 F.2d 1308, 1317 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding instructional error because the Pinkerton instruction "failed to advise jurors that the government bore the burden of proving that all elements of the powerful Pinkerton doctrine must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt"). Consequently, we cannot conclude that, under these circumstances, the jury understood all of the elements necessary to hold a defendant vicariously liable for the acts of his coconspirators.
There is also direct evidence that Mr. Gaughan aided and abetted a violation of the Travel Act as set forth in Count VI (interstate travel in aid of an unlawful activity involving possession with intent to distribute cocaine). In order to aid and abet the Travel Act violation, the evidence must demonstrate that Mr. Gaughan had the state of mind required for the Travel Act offense and took some action intended to make the endeavor succeed, see id. at 1318; it was not necessary for the Government to show that Mr. Gaughan induced or even had knowledge of Bonner's interstate travel. See United States v. Abadie, 879 F.2d 1260, 1266 (5th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1987) ("Our holding that an aider and abettor of a Travel Act violation need not have assisted in the use of interstate facilities is consistent with the reasoning of other circuits."). Mr. Gaughan's fronting of the drugs to Bonner meets this criterion.
Mr. Ford and Mr. Gaughan were convicted of violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, on or about December 8, 1997. The indictment charged both the principal offense of violating the Travel Act and aiding and abetting a violation of the Travel Act. "`To establish a violation [of the Travel Act], it is sufficient to show interstate travel or the use of an interstate facility with intent to promote or carry on an unlawful activity, and facts constituting the promotion or carrying on of the unlawful activity.'" United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407, 410 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455, 489 (7th Cir. 1977)).
B. Sentencing Issues 1. Mr. Gaughan
Mr. Gaughan was considered a Category I offender by the district court. On this appeal, he does not challenge the district court's factual finding that 30 kilograms of cocaine may be attributed to him, and the record amply supports this finding. At Mr. Gaughan's sentencing hearing, Bonner testified specifically that he made approximately 30 pickups from Mr. Gaughan, receiving one kilogram of cocaine each time. According to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), a person convicted of a crime involving between 15 and 50 kilograms of cocaine has a base offense level of 34. However, the district court also found that Mr. Gaughan's crimes involved 1.5 kilograms of crack, which mandates an offense level of 38. The court did not enter detailed findings of fact regarding the percentage of the cocaine converted to crack, stating simply:
Mr. Gaughan was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine. It is appropriate for a district court to attribute to a defendant the conversion of cocaine into crack by the defendant's co-conspirators if that conversion was foreseeable. See United States v. Shorter, 54 F.3d 1248, 1261 (7th Cir. 1995) ("The evidence also indicated that Shorter knew of or reasonably should have foreseen the conversion to crack form."). The record contains evidence indicating that Mr. Gaughan was aware that some cocaine was being converted to crack. Bonner testified at trial that he spoke to Mr. Gaughan about problems Mr. Ford was having with the conversion of cocaine into crack. According to Bonner, Mr. Gaughan responded that his "other peoples" were not having problems with the conversion. Tr. at 311. Later, Bonner was asked, "Did [Mr. Gaughan] know that some of his crack cocaine — some of his cocaine was going to be cooked into crack"; Bonner answered "Yes, he — he knew that." Tr. at 479. From this testimony, the district court could properly conclude that Mr. Gaughan was aware that some cocaine was being converted to crack.
Other circuits have agreed that, when a defendant could foresee the conversion of cocaine to crack, he properly may be held accountable for the conversion. See United States v. Fox, 189 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 841, 145 L.Ed.2d 707 (2000).
Q. And is that — you agree with me?
A. No, he didn't know what I was doing.
Tr. at 409-10. Bonner later clarified that Mr. Gaughan did not know that Bonner personally was converting cocaine into crack but that Mr. Gaughan was aware that someone was converting cocaine into crack:
Q. You were asked the question whether or not Bob [Gaughan] knew that you were cooking crack cocaine, and you said you — he didn't, is that correct?
Q. Did he know that some of his crack cocaine — some of his cocaine was going to be cooked into crack?
A. Yes, he — he knew that.
The Government, however, points to no evidence suggesting a conversion ratio. Although the Government has provided evidence that Mr. Gaughan could foresee the conversion of some percentage of the cocaine, it has offered no evidence showing what percentage he expected would be converted. It also has not provided testimony regarding the percentage of cocaine lost in the conversion to crack, which has been relied upon in cases such as this one. See, e.g., Hunter, 145 F.3d at 952. We acknowledge that the district court's estimate of the conversion ratio was conservative. However, because the district court did not discuss the evidence supporting its determination of the conversion ratio, we cannot say that its finding was based on reliable evidence and that it did not "`calculate drug amounts by guesswork'" in contravention of the Guidelines' requirements. United States v. Beler, 20 F.3d 1428, 1433 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Paulino, 996 F.2d 1541, 1545 (3d Cir. 1993)). Consequently, we must remand to the district court for resentencing. We emphasize again that we do not disturb the district court's finding that Mr. Gaughan is responsible for 30 kilograms of cocaine; we vacate the sentence only because the Government has not provided reliable evidence of the conversion ratio foreseeable to Mr. Gaughan.
Finally, Mr. Gaughan submits, by motion filed after oral argument, that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) makes his sentence invalid. We cannot accept this argument. According to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), the statutory maximum for an offense involving even a small amount of cocaine is 20 years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Mr. Gaughan's sentence of 235 months is below that statutory maximum and therefore Apprendi does not apply.
The district court applied a two-level supervisory enhancement to Mr. Ford's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines provide for a two-level enhancement "[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). "We have . . . affirmed enhancements under section 3B1.1(c) if the defendant was a key figure who coordinated and organized the criminal activity, even if he did not necessarily control another participant." United States v. Granado, 72 F.3d 1287, 1290 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Bell, 28 F.3d 615, 617-18 (7th Cir. 1994) (listing factors that distinguish "organizers and leaders" from "rank and file criminals"). The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an enhancement is warranted. See United States v. Cain, 155 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Watson, 189 F.3d 496, 502 (7th Cir. 1999). The district court's decision to enhance a sentence is reviewed for clear error. See Cain, 155 F.3d at 843.
Q. And how did you happen to meet Larry [Stott]. What were the circumstances of that meeting, sir?
A. The circumstances of that meeting was he would probably be meeting to purchase further drugs.
Mr. Ford also challenges the district court's drug quantity calculation. The district court attributed to Mr. Ford 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. That amount of crack mandates an offense level of 38 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). With the supervisory enhancement, Mr. Ford's total offense level was 40. The Guidelines mandate that a category V offender, such as Mr. Ford, with an offense level of 40 be given a sentence between 360 months and life imprisonment; the district court sentenced Mr. Ford to 360 months and then added a consecutive 60-month sentence for his § 924(c)(1) conviction. On appeal, Mr. Ford challenges only the district court's drug quantity calculation. Again, we review for clear error, and we shall reverse only if we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. See Galbraith, 200 F.3d at 1011.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) requires that all defendants convicted of using or carrying a gun in relation to a drug trafficking offense serve a 60 month sentence consecutive to their sentence for the underlying drug trafficking offense.
Turning to the Government's second contention, Bonner also testified that, after his October conversation with Mr. Ford, he began to cook cocaine into crack on his own before delivering it. This testimony provides a more reliable basis for determining the amount of crack attributable to Mr. Ford. Bonner testified that, in October, he delivered to Mr. Ford approximately 500 grams of cocaine and that approximately 75% to 80% of that amount — or 375 to 400 grams — was in crack form. Bonner testified further that in the last meeting he had with Mr. Ford prior to being arrested, he had with him 250 grams of cocaine, of which "over half" — or more than 125 grams — was crack. Gaughan Sent. Tr. at 37. Finally, at the time Bonner was arrested, he had in his possession 403 grams of crack that he planned to deliver to Mr. Ford. Adding together these amounts, the total amount of crack attributable to Mr. Ford from Bonner's testimony is at least 903 grams. Thus, there is at least some evidentiary basis for a finding that Mr. Ford's criminal activities involved 903 grams of crack.
A. Then I would get it to my — Larry.