Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/965/283/19981/
Timestamp: 2019-09-18 07:17:07
Document Index: 685663585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ray Pollard, Defendant-appellant, 965 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1992 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ray Pollard, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ray Pollard, Defendant-appellant, 965 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 965 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1992)
Argued Feb. 27, 1992. Decided June 2, 1992
Ray Pollard pled guilty to one count of a superseding indictment charging him with manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). He was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and fined $6,000 pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines ("Guidelines"). He appeals from this sentence, arguing that the district court erred in considering as relevant conduct marijuana grown by a co-defendant. We affirm.
In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a) (1).
A sentence imposed under the Guidelines will be upheld if "the district court correctly applied the Guidelines to findings of fact that were not clearly erroneous." United States v. Duarte, 950 F.2d 1255, 1262 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Vopravil, 891 F.2d 155, 157 (7th Cir. 1989)).
The base offense level under the Guidelines for the unlawful manufacture of marijuana depends on the quantity of marijuana involved. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a) (3). For offenses which require a grouping of multiple counts under Guideline § 3D1.2(d),2 the court shall consider "all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a) (2). In United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490 (7th Cir. 1989), we held that:
[T]o determine the offense level for a drug offense, §§ 1B1.3(a) (2) and 3D1.2(d) of the Guidelines allow a court to aggregate the amounts of drugs from any act that "were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction" whether or not the defendant was charged or convicted of possessing or distributing these additional amounts.
United States v. Franklin, 902 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 274, 112 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1990).3 Conduct on dismissed counts which is part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan may also be considered in determining the base offense level. Id.; United States v. Salva, 902 F.2d 483, 488 (7th Cir. 1990). In defining "same course of conduct or common scheme or plan" we stated:
Count 1 of the superseding indictment charged Pollard, Kawa and Lambert with one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana. The conspiracy charge against Pollard was dismissed when he pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, Count 8 of the superseding indictment. However, conduct relating to Pollard's conspiracy charge, which is part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as his conviction of manufacturing marijuana under the Guideline § 1B1.3(a) (2), may be considered when determining the base offense level. See Franklin, 902 F.2d at 504; Salva, 902 F.2d at 488.
a. Marijuana cigarette delivered to agents 1.870 gm. b. Nineteen plants seized at Pollard's residence 1,900.000 gm. c. Loose marijuana seized at Pollard's residence 210.800 gm. d. 2 bags of marijuana seized at Pollard's residence 7.410 gm. e. Marijuana cigarette seized at High Tech .328 gm. f. Kawa's marijuana plants 29,600.000 gm. -------------- TOTAL: 31,720.408 gm.
Section 3D1.2 is entitled "Groups of Closely-Related Counts" and subsection (d) requires grouping of counts " [w]hen the offense level is determined largely on the basis of the total amount of harm or loss, the quantity of a substance involved, or some other measure of aggregate harm...."
However, a defendant need not actually have been convicted of more than one count for Guidelines § 1B1.3(a) (2) to apply. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n. 2); See United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490, 497 (7th Cir. 1989).
In White we specifically declined to follow the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Restrepo, 883 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1989), withdrawn, 896 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1990), which held that only conduct resulting in a criminal conviction may be considered in determining the offense level under the Multiple Counts section of the Guidelines. See White, 888 F.2d at 490. Therefore Pollard's reliance on Restrepo is misplaced