Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/90/164/593961/
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 20:34:59
Document Index: 233180894

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 1956', '§ 3742', '§ 2', '§ 1956', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Roger Nesbitt (94-2018); Nelson Porto (94-2029);tracy Edmond (94-2032); Lonnie Mckissic, Jr.(94-2083), Defendants-appellants, 90 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1996 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Roger Nesbitt (94-2018); Nelson Porto (94-2...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Roger Nesbitt (94-2018); Nelson Porto (94-2029);tracy Edmond (94-2032); Lonnie Mckissic, Jr.(94-2083), Defendants-appellants, 90 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 1996)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 90 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 1996) Submitted Feb. 6, 1996. Decided July 22, 1996
Defendants-appellants, Charles Nesbitt, Tracy Edmond, Nelson Porto, and Lonnie McKissic, were indicted in the Western District of Michigan and charged with involvement in a conspiracy to distribute over 5 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) and 841(b) (1) (A). First, Second, and Third Superseding Indictments were returned on December 28, 1993, March 10, 1994, and April 7, 1994. The indictments alleged that cocaine was being shipped from Florida to the cities of Lansing, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek and Grand Rapids in the Western District of Michigan, as well as the City of Detroit. The Third Superseding Indictment also charged defendant Lonnie McKissic with two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a).
This court has repeatedly held that it has no jurisdiction over appeals contesting the extent of a downward departure as such appeals do not fall under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. See e.g., United States v. Gregory, 932 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Draper, 888 F.2d 1100, 1105 (6th Cir. 1989).
First, we are not required to entertain defendant's challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal because defendant failed to move for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 at the close of the government's case-in-chief. This failure constitutes a waiver of any objection to the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1356 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1163, 114 S. Ct. 1188, 127 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1994); United States v. Williams, 940 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1016, 112 S. Ct. 666, 116 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1991). Furthermore, defendant never raised the "buyer-seller" defense at trial or requested a jury instruction on that defense. Hence, defendant has waived his right to raise the issue on appeal. United States v. Hatchett, 918 F.2d 631, 643 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1223, 111 S. Ct. 2839, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1008 (1991).
Under these circumstances, we will not reverse absent a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Morrow, 977 F.2d 222, 230 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 975, 113 S. Ct. 2969, 125 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1993). We find none. Once the existence of a conspiracy is shown, only slight evidence is necessary to connect a defendant with it. See United States v. Hitow, 889 F.2d 1573, 1577 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d 168, 174 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1013, 108 S. Ct. 1748, 100 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1988). The record in this case establishes sufficient indicia of defendant's involvement in the conspiracy. Witness Troy Lei, a courier for the conspiracy, named Tracy Edmond as a member of the conspiracy. Another courier, David Frost, testified that he delivered five kilograms of cocaine to a man named Tracy, but was not paid until a later time. We find that the trust involved in this kind of delayed payment arrangement suggests more than a buyer-seller relationship between Tracy Edmond and the Gavirias.
In addition to this evidence linking Tracy Edmond to the conspiracy, the evidence presented at trial showing advanced planning and multiple transactions involving large quantities of illegal drugs is also evidence that Tracy Edmond's involvement was not confined to a buyer-seller relationship. See Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711, 63 S. Ct. 1265, 1269, 87 L. Ed. 1674 (1943) (dangerous substance and large quantities of sales may furnish conclusive evidence of involvement in a conspiracy). For these reasons, we shall AFFIRM Tracy's Edmond's conviction.
Tracy Edmond's attack on his sentence also must fail. He argues that the district court erred in attributing 139 kilograms of cocaine to him for sentencing purposes. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (4). Findings of fact relating to sentencing, including the quantity of drugs attributed to a defendant, are reviewed by this court under a clearly erroneous standard. See e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.2d 1126, 1130 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1300-01 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 990, 111 S. Ct. 532, 112 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1990).
Defendant Lonnie McKissic pled guilty to one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and was sentenced to 114 months imprisonment. In his appeal, McKissic asserts that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement " [i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution or sentencing of the instant offense." (emphasis added). The Application Notes to this section provide the following examples of obstructive conduct: "threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a co-defendant, witness, or juror, directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so." U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, Comment n. 3(a). The notes also refer to "committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury." Id., Comment n. 3(b).
A district court's ruling that a defendant obstructed justice is a finding of fact which will be disturbed on appeal only if clearly erroneous. United States v. August, 984 F.2d 705, 714 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 854, 114 S. Ct. 158, 126 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1993). We review legal questions involving interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Smith, 39 F.3d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1994).
In support of his arguments, defendant McKissic cites United States v. Horry, 49 F.3d 1178 (6th Cir. 1995), for the proposition that "the obstruction must occur solely with respect to the offense of conviction." Id. at 1180-81. However, Horry is distinguishable from this case. The defendant in Horry was convicted for wire fraud, and the district court enhanced her sentenced based on trial testimony that she had used a false name when writing to her husband, who was in prison in Ohio, in order to assist him in avoiding detection by law enforcement officials. As a result of her actions, defendant's husband was able to become a federal fugitive. This court reversed the obstruction of justice enhancement on the grounds that defendant's husband was not at all involved in the fraud for which she was convicted. Hence, any obstruction of justice she committed was wholly unrelated to her offense of conviction. Id.
We also note that this result is consistent with another Sixth Circuit decision involving U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, based on facts similar to this matter. In United States v. Crousore, 1 F.3d 382, 384 (6th Cir. 1993), the defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, defendant perjuriously denied his involvement in an additional offense. Later, when the government sought to enhance his sentence based on this perjury, defendant claimed that he did not lie about the offenses to which he pled guilty, and therefore his perjury could not support an enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1.
In determining a defendant's relevant conduct for a conspiracy charge, the Sentencing Guidelines instruct the court to determine the drug amount "reasonably foreseeable" to the defendant. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a) (1). This relevant conduct is deemed to be within the scope of his agreement in the conspiracy. Id., Comment, n. 2; United States v. Jenkins, 4 F.3d 1338, 1346 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 1547, 128 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1994). "Proof of relevant conduct must be supported by some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation." United States v. Zimmer, 14 F.3d 286, 290 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation omitted).