Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/955/1098/448167/
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 21:59:56
Document Index: 608586501

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 851', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 851', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 6', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 3500']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Levy, Defendant-appellant, 955 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1992 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Levy, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Levy, Defendant-appellant, 955 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 955 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1992)
Argued June 14, 1991. Decided Jan. 30, 1992. Rehearing and Rehearing En BancDenied Feb. 24, 1992
Before trial, Levy moved in limine that evidence of the April 20, 1989 "sting" transaction be held inadmissible, on the grounds that it did not qualify as prior bad act evidence within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). He also moved to suppress the incriminating statements he made during his questioning by the drug enforcement agents on June 26, 1990, claiming that he made the statements involuntarily and without receiving the Miranda warnings. The court denied both motions. Thereafter on October 24, 1990, the government, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), notified Levy of its intent to seek enhancement of his sentence based on Levy's prior Illinois drug dealing conviction. Also included, in addition to the statutorily required notice, was the possibility of enhancement of any sentence based on the amount of cocaine involved (more than 500 grams). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B) (ii) (II). The case proceeded to trial on October 29, 1990. Two days later, on October 31, 1990 the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts in the indictment.
At sentencing, on December 21, 1990, the court concluded that Levy had delivered 1,288 grams of cocaine to Wagner, basing its calculations primarily on the statements Levy made during his interview with the drug agents on June 26, 1990. Accordingly, Levy was assigned an offense level of 28 under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, his Guidelines range for incarceration of 97 to 121 months was altered because of the ten-year mandatory minimum which the court determined should be imposed pursuant to the sentencing enhancement provision in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B) (ii) (II). As a result, Levy was sentenced at the mandatory minimum--120 months on each count to run concurrently--with an eight year period of supervised release. This appeal followed.
We have frequently discussed the standard which district courts should employ when ruling on the admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b). See e.g., United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Shackleford, 738 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1984). As we explained in United States v. Zapata,
871 F.2d at 620. See also United States v. Manganellis, 864 F.2d 528, 531-32 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282, 1294 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1074, 109 S. Ct. 2084, 104 L. Ed. 2d 648 (1989). In reviewing decisions to admit evidence of prior bad acts based on this four-pronged analysis, the district court will only be reversed upon a showing that the court committed a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Montoya, 891 F.2d 1273, 1284 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d at 621; United States v. Harrod, 856 F.2d 996, 999 (7th Cir. 1988).
Levy next contends that the district court should have suppressed the incriminating statements he made during his June 26, 1990 interrogation because the law enforcement agents failed to give him the Miranda warnings prior to questioning. But law enforcement officers need not administer Miranda warnings to suspects who are questioned outside of a custodial setting. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 2397, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243 (1990). Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977) ("police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question"); United States v. Lane, 811 F.2d 1166, 1170 (7th Cir. 1987) ("Miranda deals only with 'the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation' ") (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 439, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1609, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)). Hence, the threshold inquiry in determining whether Miranda warnings are required is whether the police have placed "such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody.' " United States v. Fazio, 914 F.2d 950, 954 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S. Ct. at 714). When reviewing the district court's determination on the issue of "custody," we will not disturb the district court's underlying factual findings and its resolution of credibility disputes unless they are clearly erroneous. Fazio, 914 F.2d at 955; United States v. Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794, 819 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Talkington, 843 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Boden, 854 F.2d 983, 990-91 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Laughlin, 772 F.2d 1382, 1386 (7th Cir. 1985).5
Levy also contends that the statement he gave was involuntary as the product of psychological coercion and intimidation. We disagree. " 'In contrast to the presumption of coercion that attends statements given during custodial interrogation in the absence of Miranda warnings, statements made during a noncustodial interrogation are not viewed with suspicion.' " Fazio, 914 F.2d at 956 (quoting United States v. Serlin, 707 F.2d 953, 958 (7th Cir. 1983)). While the Supreme Court has recognized that even noncustodial interrogations " 'might possibly in some situations, by virtue of some special circumstances, be characterized as one where "the behavior of ... law enforcement officials was such as to overbear [a suspect's] will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined," ' "6 this is not such a situation. The test for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether "the defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed." Id.
The record in this case does not support Levy's assertion that his will was overborne, or that his statement was the product of police coercion. In rejecting Levy's claim that his statements were induced by threats and improper interrogation techniques, the magistrate specifically found that "the interview was conducted in a nonthreatening environment, in a civil manner free of displays of force, intimidation or strong-arm tactics." The magistrate also found that Levy "appear [ed] to have responded in a calculated manner in furtherance of his own self-interest" to the agents' questions. These findings do not suggest the existence of " [c]oercive police activity," a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States ex rel. Link v. Lane, 811 F.2d 1166, 1170 (7th Cir. 1987).7 We accordingly conclude that Levy's statements on June 26, 1990 were voluntarily made to the drug agents.
Levy contends that the indictment did not adequately notify him of the government's intention to seek an enhanced sentence under § 841(b) (1) (B) and thereby violated his due process rights. The portion of the indictment which Levy now challenges read as follows:
From on or about July 1, 1988, until on or about March 21, 1989, ... ROBERT A. LEVY knowingly and unlawfully conspired and agreed with Randall E. Wagner and others ... to violate Title 21, United States Code, Sec. 841(a) (1) by agreeing to knowingly and intentionally distribute cocaine, a schedule II narcotic controlled substance.
Levy acknowledges that the government, pursuant to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a),8 notified him before trial of its intention to seek enhancement of his sentence based on his prior felony conviction. That statutorily required notice also included the additional information that there was a possibility of an enhanced penalty based on the more than 500 grams of cocaine involved in the conspiracy. Nevertheless, he argues that because the indictment did not specifically allege that he was responsible for more than 500 grams of cocaine, the imposition of an enhanced penalty under § 841(b) (1) (B) is impermissible. To support this contention, Levy cites this court's decision in United States v. Paiz for the proposition that an indictment must apprise the defendant of the possibility that enhanced penalty provisions could apply. 905 F.2d 1014, 1033 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 1319, 113 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1991).
In Paiz, we considered whether an enhanced sentence could be imposed under § 841(b) (1) (B) for a conviction of a § 846 count if the amount of drugs involved is only alleged in the overt acts portion of the indictment. Relying on the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Gibbs, 813 F.2d 596 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 822, 108 S. Ct. 83, 98 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1987), we held that although § 841(b) (1) (B) is a penalty provision which did not have to be alleged to obtain a conspiracy conviction, the defendant was nonetheless entitled to notice "of the possibility that enhanced penalty provisions could apply." Paiz, 905 F.2d at 1032-33. See also United States v. Acevedo, 891 F.2d 607, 611 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Ocampo, 890 F.2d 1363, 1373 (7th Cir. 1989). In Paiz, we did not set out alternative methods by which sufficient notice of § 841(b) enhancement might be given, nor, significantly, did we specify that such notice must be provided by the indictment itself. We only concluded that the indictment in that case, when viewed as a whole, comprising both overt acts and substantive counts, fairly informed Paiz that the amount of marijuana involved might subject him to the enhanced penalty provision of § 841(b) (1) (B). Paiz, 905 F.2d at 1033.
While we agree that Levy is entitled to receive notice of the possibility of an enhanced sentence based on the weight of the drugs involved, Paiz should not be construed to require that such notice be provided by the indictment. The issue regarding the weight of drugs under § 841(b) relates to the sentencing factor, not an element of the offense. Id. Because it is not an element of the offense, the quantity of drugs is not an issue for jury determination. As we have made clear, "facts germane only to sentencing are resolved by the judge not the jury." United States v. Smith, 938 F.2d 69, 70 (7th Cir. 1991). By limiting our discussion in Paiz to the sufficiency of notice as provided by the indictment, we did not intend to discount the other means of notice concerning sentence enhancement which would meet due process requirements.
When the defendant receives notice of the facts upon which the district judge intends to rely for imposition of sentence, the defendant may dispute those facts and the court must provide a procedure by which the defendant is given an opportunity to be heard on those issues. See Rule 32(a) (1) and U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3. The defendant may contest any issue of fact (such as the quantity of drugs involved in an offense) which will affect his sentence.
There appears to us to be no difference between the application of the enhancement provisions under § 841(b) and the application of those enhancement factors found in the Sentencing Guidelines. "The elements of § 841(b) ... are to be considered by the court at sentencing after a jury finding of guilt." United States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585, 605 (7th Cir. 1990). The same is true in the application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The notice provided to Levy concerning the possibility of enhancement of his sentence based on the quantity of the drugs involved was more than adequate. There is no indication that he lacked sufficient time or opportunity to contest the § 841(b) (1) (B) sentence enhancement factors at the time of sentencing. There was no infringement upon Levy's due process rights.
The district court specifically set forth, both at the sentencing hearing and in its written judgment, the reasons underlying its decision to deny Levy a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Levy persisted in denying that he had distributed six pounds of cocaine, and also noted that the defendant's "belated remorse does not suggest the timeliness of conduct manifesting the acceptance of responsibility." We cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous and therefore warrants reversal. See United States v. Brick, 905 F.2d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir. 1990).
Levy's assertion that the district court incorrectly calculated the amount of cocaine involved is similarly flawed. The law is well-settled that the amount of cocaine involved in the conspiracy is a question of fact for the trial court's determination. United States v. Ocampo, 890 F.2d 1363, 1372-73 (7th Cir. 1989). The most that Levy can establish in this case, however, is that another permissible view of the evidence exists; he simply questions the district court's decision to credit an officer's testimony that Levy admitted to delivering six to eight pounds of cocaine. Again, the district court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses appearing before it. In this case, we have been given no reason to hold otherwise.
Levy makes a related assertion that he should have been granted a mistrial because he was not provided with a report prepared by the DEA agent accompanying Wagner during the "sting" transaction, until after the agent testified. Levy misreads the requirements of the Jencks Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3500. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(a) (codifying the Jencks Act). The Jencks Act requires the government to produce "any statement of the witness that is in their possession" on the motion by the defendant " [a ]fter a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination" (emphasis added). The government was unaware that the agent had prepared such a report until after he had testified, at which point the report was then provided both to the prosecutor and the defense
Recent cases from our circuit have held that mixed questions of law and fact should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard when they involve fact specific applications of law. See Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank, N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 933-37 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc); Mucha v. King, 792 F.2d 602, 604-06 (7th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Malin, 908 F.2d 163, 169-170 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 534, 112 L. Ed. 2d 544 (1990) (Easterbrook, J., concurring). United States v. Hocking, 860 F.2d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 1988), which applied a de novo review with regard to the issue of custodial interrogation, appears to be inconsistent with our existing case law, as well as the decisions of other circuits. See, e.g. United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) (the determination of custodial interrogation is essentially factual and thus subject to a clearly erroneous review). Thus the precedential value of Hocking's indication that a de novo review would be appropriate under these circumstances is vitiated
Fazio, 914 F.2d at 956 (quoting Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347-48, 96 S. Ct. 1612, 1616-17, 48 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1976) (quoting Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S. Ct. 735, 741, 5 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1961)))