Source: http://openjurist.org/892/f2d/182
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 03:50:01
Document Index: 699644662

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

892 F2d 182 United States v. Candito | OpenJurist
892 F. 2d 182 - United States v. Candito	Home892 f2d 182 united states v. candito
892 F2d 182 United States v. Candito 892 F.2d 182
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Joseph CANDITO, Appellant.
No. 295, Docket 89-1230.
Argued Oct. 25, 1989.Decided Dec. 14, 1989.
Joseph Candito was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on January 26, 1989, for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1982), and for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine within one thousand feet of a public elementary school, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 845a(a) (1982 & Supp. V 1987), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1982). He was sentenced by Judge Warren W. Eginton to 168 months imprisonment pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. See generally United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Oct. 1987) (hereinafter "Guideline" or "Guidelines").
DeFelice also indicated that he and Candito had been involved in similar narcotics dealings in cooperation with Terico. He assured Williams, "We'll--you know, we'll conduct business the right way. I know--I know it wasn't done the right way." He then added, "[Terico] should have introduced us before...."
On the morning of September 7, 1988, DeFelice and Special Agent Williams arranged to meet at a McDonald's restaurant on Interstate Route 95 in Darien a little after noon that same day. DeFelice said that he could deliver one kilogram in the afternoon and the other two kilograms later that evening. DeFelice told Special Agent Williams that he would be accompanied by Candito at the afternoon purchase. Candito did not appear that afternoon, and DeFelice complained, "[Expletive] Joe's supposed to be around. He ain't around." After DeFelice turned over the kilogram, he was arrested.
The district court calculated Candito's Guideline sentence as follows: It categorized Candito's offense under Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(3), which covers narcotics trafficking. Pursuant to § 2D1.1(a)(3), it then calculated the quantity of narcotics involved in Candito's conduct. The district court concluded that Candito both belonged to the conspiracy between October 2, 1987, and September 7, 1988, and could be held responsible for the four transactions occurring during that time. The October 2, 1987, transaction amounted to 113.88 grams. Although the December 22, 1987, transaction involved 124 grams, this amount was doubled to 248 grams pursuant to Guideline § 2D1.3(a)(2)(B) (Supp. Jan. 15, 1988), because the transaction occurred within one thousand feet of a schoolyard.1 The July 14, 1988, transaction added another 154.2 grams to the total. Finally, the negotiated amount of the September 7, 1988, transaction was three kilograms, bringing the total quantity to over 3.5 kilograms and a corresponding offense level of 30.
B. Candito's Due Process Claim: Candito's other claim asserts that the district court violated due process by basing its findings pertaining to his participation in the conspiracy on the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard. Candito hangs his hat on a decision from the Central District of California holding that due process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the facts supporting the computation of a Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Davis, 715 F.Supp. 1473 (C.D.Cal.1989). We are not persuaded by the reasoning of Davis, nor, apparently, is the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Restrepo, 883 F.2d 781, 784 n. 7 (9th Cir.1989). More importantly, however, this argument is foreclosed by a contrary decision of this court, United States v. Guerra, 888 F.2d 247 (2d Cir.1989), which held that proof of relevant conduct under the Guidelines by a preponderance of the evidence satisfies due process. Consequently, Candito's second argument fails.
Home892 f2d 182 united states v. candito