Source: http://openjurist.org/950/f2d/1255
Timestamp: 2016-05-02 03:48:38
Document Index: 798470723

Matched Legal Cases: ['arte 950', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2']

950 F2d 1255 United States v. Duarte | OpenJurist
950 F. 2d 1255 - United States v. Duarte HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 950 F.2d.
950 F2d 1255 United States v. Duarte 950 F.2d 1255
34 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1140
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Bienvenido DUARTE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-1203.
Argued Sept. 11, 1991.Decided Dec. 10, 1991.Rehearing Denied March 27, 1992.
The police then obtained a search warrant for Room 207 of the Exel. The search yielded 1.177 kilograms of cocaine and some cocaine dealing paraphernalia, including a roll of wax paper, a box of plastic storage bags, a strainer, and a hand-held gram scale. Duarte was arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
To procure a valid conspiracy conviction, the government must demonstrate that (1) a conspiracy to distribute cocaine existed, and (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy and agreed to "join and associate himself with its criminal design and purpose." United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407, 414-15 (7th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Ruiz, 932 F.2d 1174, 1179 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 151, 116 L.Ed.2d 116 (1991); United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385, 1390 (7th Cir.1991). As noted above, Duarte concedes the first element, and, moreover, does not claim that he was ignorant of Arroyo's drug-related activities. His sole contention is that the government did not proffer sufficient evidence to prove that he joined the conspiracy.
Defendants advancing sufficiency of the evidence claims face a heavy burden; we deny such claims if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " United States v. Pritchard, 745 F.2d 1112, 1122 (7th Cir.1984) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)). When, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to an existing conspiracy, we will sustain a verdict of guilt if there is "substantial evidence" in the record of the defendant's agreement to participate, and actual participation, in the conspiracy. Ruiz, 932 F.2d at 1179; Auerbach, 913 F.2d at 414.
At the outset, we emphasize that a defendant's "mere knowledge of, approval of, association with, or presence at a conspiracy" is not sufficient to establish participation therein. United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir.1990). Agreement is the essence of conspiracy; nobody may be convicted of the offense unless the government proves that he agreed to join or participate in a criminal enterprise. Townsend, 924 F.2d at 1390. It is simply not enough to prove that the defendant hung out with criminals, knowingly witnessed the execution of a conspiratorial plot, or even wished the conspirators success. See United States v. Atterson, 926 F.2d 649, 655-56 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2909, 115 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1991).
This lack of direct evidence, while hardly ideal, does not compel reversal of Duarte's conviction. A defendant's agreement to join a conspiracy may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence: "[i]f the prosecution presents enough circumstantial evidence to support, beyond a reasonable doubt, an inference that the defendant[ ] agreed ... to distribute drugs, a jury would be justified in convicting [him]." Townsend, 924 F.2d at 1390 (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Troop, 890 F.2d 1393, 1397 (7th Cir.1989). Having said this, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Doing so elicits three crucial deductions.
Second, Hehr's interpretation of the drug notes, coupled with the testimony of the handwriting expert, is evidence that Duarte recorded actual cocaine transactions, affirmatively tying him to the cocaine trade. Although, as we explain below, nothing in the drug notes suggests that the transactions recorded therein took place in Milwaukee, the notes could suggest that Duarte was in league with Arroyo. Also tying Duarte to the drug trade is his possession of a telephone beeper, which, in conjunction with the drug notes, could justifiably raise the eyebrows of a reasonable juror.4 See United States v. Solis, 923 F.2d 548, 550-51 (7th Cir.1991) (recognizing that beepers are common tools in drug rings).
In sum, while there is no direct evidence that Duarte agreed to join the conspiracy, circumstantial evidence (1) links Duarte to Arroyo, and thus the cocaine recovered at the Exel, (2) links Duarte to the cocaine trade in general, and (3) suggests that Duarte had something to hide. It is unlikely that any of these links or suggestions, taken alone, could support a guilty verdict. However, on appeal, it is important "that we not rend the fabric of evidence and examine each shred in isolation." Durrive, 902 F.2d at 1229 (citations omitted). On the contrary, we must, as the jury did, view the evidence as a whole. Moreover, we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. The fact that plausible, innocent explanations of Duarte's behavior were available to the jury is of little moment in an appellate court. See United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 843 (7th Cir.1991) (citing cases).
Before proceeding, we must briefly address Duarte's objection to the use of agent Hehr's interpretation of the drug notes to support the conviction. Duarte concedes that Hehr's opinions were admissible at trial--a concession we find wise, see United States v. Cagle, 922 F.2d 404, 407 (7th Cir.1991) and United States v. de Soto, 885 F.2d 354, 362-63 (7th Cir.1989)--but argues that they "cannot substitute for evidence of knowledge and intent sufficient for conviction." App. Br. at 12. We understand Duarte to contend that, as a matter of law, the government may not use expert testimony branding a defendant's conduct criminal to establish a prima facie case of guilt either at trial or on appeal.
In support of his contention, Duarte points us to a line of cases from the Second Circuit, including United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985) (officer, who posed as a buyer, testified that defendant's behavior indicated that he was a "steerer" who screened officer on behalf of a drug dealer), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 1793, 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733 (2d Cir.1984) (officer testified that defendants' surreptitious behavior at a hotel indicated that he was in on a drug transaction, even though actual transaction occurred out of sight of officer), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1842, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985); United States v. Sette, 334 F.2d 267, 268-69 (2d Cir.1964) (agents testified that defendant's conduct indicated that he was the "banker" of a gambling operation); and United States v. Jones, 605 F.Supp. 513 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (officer testified that defendant was acting as a "look-out" for a drug deal occurring inside of a building). Of these, Judge Newman's concurrence in Young, and Jones, a district court case relying on this concurrence, are most significant; they hold (in Judge Newman's case, propose) that an expert's personal opinion that certain ambiguous conduct constitutes criminal behavior should be given little, if any, weight in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. The Second Circuit formally adopted Judge Newman's proposal in United States v. Boissoneault, 926 F.2d 230, 234-35 (2d Cir.1991), when it overturned a conviction on sufficiency of the evidence grounds.
At oral argument, the government maintained that Boissoneault is flawed. It is unnecessary to address the issue here, for the rule announced therein is inapposite to this case. Boissoneault and its predecessors direct their fire towards experts who testify that a defendant's ambiguous physical conduct constituted criminal behavior, or who deduce from certain physical evidence that a defendant possessed a criminal state of mind. In Jones, for example, the government's case consisted in large part of the investigating officer's testimony that, in his opinion, the defendant's presence near the scene of a drug transaction and brief conversation with the dealer demonstrated that he was acting as a lookout for that particular transaction. Jones, 605 F.Supp. at 516. Similarly, the expert in Boissoneault testified that the defendant's possession of cocaine in druggist folds and $1,460 in ten and twenty dollar bills suggested that he intended to deal cocaine rather than keep it for his own personal use. Boissoneault, 926 F.2d at 234-35.
Hehr's testimony is different in two important respects. First, he did not opine as to Duarte's ambiguous physical conduct (there was none on which to opine), but only interpreted ambiguous written documents seized from him. Both the Second Circuit and this Court have expressed far more concern over the former type of testimony than the latter. See id. at 233; United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 619-20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 993, 110 S.Ct. 543, 107 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989); de Soto, 885 F.2d at 359-63. Second, and equally important, Hehr's testimony was limited to explaining "the likely drug transaction-related significance of" the drug notes, and left to the jury the task of inferring that Duarte was a member of Arroyo's cocaine conspiracy--a critical distinction under the Second Circuit's analysis. See Boissoneault, 926 F.2d at 233.
The base offense level under the Guidelines for cocaine conspiracy and possession offenses depends upon the quantity of cocaine involved in the crime. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). At the sentencing hearing conducted on January 22, 1991, as well as in written objections to the pre-sentence report, Duarte claimed that he could be held accountable only for the 1.177 kilograms of cocaine seized at the Exel Inn, a quantity corresponding to a base offense level of 26. The government disagreed. While conceding that it had seized only 1.177 kilograms, it pointed to agent Hehr's testimony that the drug notes demonstrated that Duarte had control over $117,000 of cocaine. Since the going price for cocaine at the time of Duarte's offense was approximately $20,000 per kilogram, the government reasoned, Duarte was actually responsible for over 5 kilograms of cocaine, and hence deserved a base offense level of 32. (The government presented no other evidence linking Duarte to 5 kilograms of cocaine.) The pre-sentence report, using different price data but similar analysis, came to the same conclusion.
Our review of sentences imposed under the Guidelines is deferential. We will uphold a sentence so long as the district court correctly applied the Guidelines to findings of fact that were not clearly erroneous. United States v. Vopravil, 891 F.2d 155, 157 (7th Cir.1989). Nonetheless, we agree with Duarte that the court's selection of a base offense level of 32 was improper, and rest our holding on two independent grounds. First, the court incorrectly applied the Guidelines because it made no factual finding--as, we explain below, it must--that the $117,000 worth of cocaine transactions recorded in the drug notes were part of the "same course of conduct or common scheme or plan" as the counts of conviction. Second, the court's factual determination concerning the amount of cocaine corresponding to $117,000 rested upon an insufficient foundation, and hence was clearly erroneous. We explore each of these grounds in turn.
Count I of the indictment charged that "from on or about June 15, 1990 to on or about June 29, 1990, the exact dates being unknown, in Milwaukee in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin, and elsewhere," Duarte conspired with others "to distribute in excess of one (1) kilogram of cocaine." Superseding Indictment, 9/11/90, at 1 (emphasis supplied). Count II charged that "on or about June 22, 1990, in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin," Duarte "possess[ed] with intent to distribute in excess of 1 kilogram of cocaine." Id. at 2 (emphasis supplied). We will refer to these counts collectively as "the Milwaukee conspiracy."
The government chose not to indict Duarte for conspiring to distribute or for possessing in excess of 5 kilograms of cocaine, although it had the option to do so under the relevant statutes. See, e.g., United States v. Jewel, 947 F.2d 224 (7th Cir.1991) (indictment charged conspiracy to distribute over 5 kilograms of cocaine); United States v. Macias, 930 F.2d 567, 570 (7th Cir.1991) (indictment charged conspiracy to distribute 8 kilograms of cocaine). Thus, in holding Duarte responsible for over 5 kilograms of cocaine, the district court imposed sentence on the basis of a crime more serious (for sentencing purposes) than the crime of which Duarte was convicted.
We have held on numerous occasions that this practice, referred to here as the "aggregation rule," is acceptable, even mandated, under §§ 1B1.3(a)(2) and 3D1.2(d) of the Guidelines. These sections, read together, provide that a district court must increase a defendant's base offense level to account for "relevant conduct," which includes drugs from any acts that "were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan" as the convicted offense, regardless of whether the defendant was charged with or convicted of carrying out those acts. 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). We have applied the aggregation rule to a wide variety of unconvicted conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Eske, 925 F.2d 205, 207 (7th Cir.1991) (permitting increase based upon uncharged activities to which defendant stipulated in plea agreement); United States v. Fonner, 920 F.2d 1330, 1332 (7th Cir.1990) (permitting increase based upon conduct with which defendant was charged, but acquitted); United States v. Ebbole, 917 F.2d 1495, 1495 (7th Cir.1990) (permitting increase based upon drugs from uncharged and unadmitted activities); United States v. Fischer, 905 F.2d 140, 141 (7th Cir.) (permitting increase based upon uncharged activities alleged by prosecutors and admitted to by defendant at sentencing hearing), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 433, 112 L.Ed.2d 416 (1990); United States v. Salva, 902 F.2d 483, 488-89 (7th Cir.1990) (permitting increase based upon amounts from counts dismissed pursuant to plea agreement).
Yet the aggregation rule has its limits. As we just observed, to increase a defendant's base offense level for uncharged or unconvicted activities, a district court must first find--by a preponderance of the evidence--that those activities were "part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan" as the convicted offense. While some of our cases are admittedly a bit vague as to what is required of district courts by way of factual findings, see, e.g., Franklin, 902 F.2d at 504; Vopravil, 891 F.2d at 158, more recent cases indicate that a district court should explicitly state and support, either at the sentencing hearing or (preferably) in a written statement of reasons, its finding that the unconvicted activities bore the necessary relation to the convicted offense. See Jewel, 233-235; United States v. Edwards, 945 F.2d 1387, 1399-1400 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484, 501-502 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490, 500 (7th Cir.1989); see generally Jewel, at 235-236; United States v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir.1990); White, 888 F.2d at 495; United States v. Herrara, 878 F.2d 997, 1002 (7th Cir.1989).6
There is, granted, some indication in the record that the court believed Duarte's activities in Milwaukee involved far more than the 1.177 kilograms recovered at the Exel. But its comments on this matter are far too vague to constitute an explicit finding that the transactions recorded in the drug notes were sufficiently related to the convicted offense.7 And this is not a case where the contents of the drug notes permit us to give the district court the benefit of the doubt. Nothing in the notes suggests that the transactions recorded therein took place in Wisconsin. Cf. United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402, 406-07 (8th Cir.1990) (importance of geographical relationship between convicted offense and relevant conduct). There is no evidence that any of the parties listed in the notes were in Wisconsin or related in any way to the Milwaukee conspiracy. Cf. id. at 407 (important that similar parties involved). Finally, the notes give no hint as to the date or dates of the transactions they record. Cf. id. at 406-07 (importance of temporal relationship); White, 888 F.2d at 500 (same); United States v. Vazzano, 906 F.2d 879, 884 (2d Cir.1990) (same). That the notes were found in Duarte's wallet at the time of his arrest is not very probative of the fact that they were composed on or around June 1990--the government's attorney, in response to a question posed at oral argument, acknowledged that he himself had not cleaned out his wallet for several months.
In sum, the fact that Duarte had once dealt 5 kilograms of cocaine--a fact, as we explain below, that is in doubt--is not enough to assign him a base offense level of 32 in this case. We reiterate that to warrant aggregation, the government must demonstrate, and the court must find, that this cocaine was "part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan" as the Milwaukee conspiracy. See White, 888 F.2d at 500 ("[o]ffenses of the same kind, but not encompassed in the same course of conduct or plan, are excluded" from consideration at sentencing). We doubt that it can do so based upon the facts in evidence at this point. There is little, if anything, to suggest a temporal, geographical or any other relationship between the Milwaukee conspiracy and the transactions recorded in the drug notes. Nonetheless, we reserve judgment and give the government the opportunity to prove its case on remand.
We also question the district court's determination that the $117,000 of cocaine transactions in the drug notes corresponds to 5 kilograms. "Ascertaining the quantity of drugs involved in an offense for the purpose of sentencing is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard." United States v. Buggs, 904 F.2d 1070, 1078 (7th Cir.1990). We reverse or vacate under this standard only when " 'on the entire evidence [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " Cagle, 922 F.2d at 406 (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (internal quotation omitted)). This is such a case.
§ 2D1.4, Application Note 2; see also United States v. Gerante, 891 F.2d 364, 368-70 (1st Cir.1989) (converting $68,000 in cash into an estimated quantity of cocaine); cf. United States v. Ferra, 948 F.2d 352, 354 (7th Cir.1991).
Owing to the variance between Hehr's testimony at trial and at the sentencing hearing, as well as the fact that the district court clearly misapprehended the very trial testimony upon which it purported to rely, we cannot accept its factual finding that Duarte was responsible for 5 kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 712 (9th Cir.) (sentencing determination based upon court's mistaken recollection of trial testimony is clearly erroneous), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2574, 109 L.Ed.2d 756 (1990). We ordinarily give great deference to the court's judgment when it must choose between one of two inconsistent statements of fact in imposing sentence. See Buggs, 904 F.2d at 1080 (upholding district court's finding regarding amount of cocaine involved, where each witness testified as to a different amount). But when the court clearly relies upon one of two contradictory statements offered by a single witness, it should directly address the contradiction and explain why it credits one statement rather than the other.
Duarte also concedes that if we uphold his conspiracy conviction, we must also uphold the possession conviction pursuant to Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). App.Br. at 8 n. 2