Source: http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/1550/united-states-v-louis
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 20:52:54
Document Index: 745047017

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

Louis claims he should have been held accountable only for the 15 grams of crack found in his jacket and not the additional crack found in the mini-van and around the house. His argument fails because the sentencing court must consider not only Louis' individual conduct, but also uncharged acts for which he would otherwise be accountable that occurred during his offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1).
"[W]hether or not charged as a conspiracy, the conduct for which the defendant 'would be otherwise accountable' also includes conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (n.1). In a drug distribution case, quantities and types of drugs not specified in the count of conviction are to be included in determining the offense level if they were part of the same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count of conviction. See United States v. Alston, 895 F.2d 1362, 1371 (11th Cir.1990) (citing cases from six other circuits that agree such accumulation is possible in context of drug quantity); see also United States v. Copeland, 902 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir.1990) (although only three vials involved in defendant's attempt to distribute cocaine and crack, sentencing court properly found defendant responsible for 63 vials recovered during arrests of codefendants for whom defendant had served as broker; defendant's own possession of larger amount or conspiracy charges unnecessary).
Louis contends that there was no conclusive evidence of a common scheme or plan linking him to the drugs in the mini-van and around the house. But district courts are required to make factual determinations at sentencing only by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 662 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1633, 113 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991), and we think the record amply supports the district court's finding that Louis was involved in a drug distribution scheme encompassing the sale of all the drugs seized in and around the house as well as the drugs found on Louis.
Unlike Louis, we do not view this evidence as merely coincidental. Furthermore, the district court's finding must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1357 (11th Cir.1989). We see no clear error in the inference that a scheme to distribute drugs existed and included Hatson Louis. We therefore affirm his accountability and sentencing based on the total quantity of drugs found on his person, around the house, and in the mini-van.
The district court decided the conspiracy in this case encompassed not only all of the drugs on the scene, but also the firearms found in the mini-van and the house. The court attributed the firearm possession to Louis as a member of the conspiracy, for whom firearm possession was at least reasonably foreseeable, if not within his actual knowledge. See United States v. Martinez, 924 F.2d 209, 210 and n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Duarte v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 203, 116 L.Ed.2d 163 (1991). These findings are not clearly erroneous. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), Louis' sentence was increased by two levels.
Louis now argues that even if a conspiracy existed and others in the conspiracy possessed firearms, United States v. Otero, 890 F.2d 366 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), precludes his sentence enhancement for firearms in this case. He specifically points to the Otero opinion's language about the actual possessor of the firearm being charged as a co-conspirator for application of Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1). But Otero involved identifiable co-conspirators; because their identity was known, they could be charged with conspiratorial activities. "Given Otero 's facts, Otero § holding remains good law in this circuit; but the rules of co-conspirator liability ... do not require that the firearm possessor be a charged co-conspirator when that co-conspirator dies or is otherwise unavailable for indictment." United States v. Nino, 967 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir.1992). Louis' fellow conspirators were never identified and therefore were never available for indictment. So, Otero does not control the application of section 2D1.1(b)(1); and the sentence enhancement for firearm possession is affirmed.
The sentencing court provided three justifications for an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement: (1) Louis' flight from police when they approached him; (2) his attempt to dispose of evidence (the crack in his jacket) during the course of his arrest; and (3) his false statements to police at the time of his arrest. We affirm the two-level enhancement but rely only on the second justification, Louis' attempt to dispose of evidence during his arrest. See also United States v. Bonds, 933 F.2d 152, 154 (2d Cir.1991) (upholding two-level enhancement where only one of two obstruction enhancement justifications was valid).
Under the Advisory Committee notes to the 1989 Sentencing Guidelines (in effect at the time of Louis' August 1990 sentencing), an attempt to dispose of material evidence was considered to be an obstruction of justice, without restriction as to when the attempt took place. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment. (n.1(a)) (Nov. 1989). Likewise, this circuit had determined that an attempt to destroy or conceal evidence just before arrest constituted obstruction of justice. See United States v. Cain, 881 F.2d 980, 982 (11th Cir.1989) (defendant postal employee threw away stolen government checks as authorities approached); see also United States v. Galvan-Garcia, 872 F.2d 638, 641 (5th Cir.1989) (defendant jettisoned marijuana with authorities in pursuit); United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 F.2d 797, 800-01 (5th Cir.1989) (defendant shot at federal agent, then threw away gun during chase).
if such conduct occurs contemporaneously with arrest (e.g., attempting to swallow or throw away a controlled substance), it shall not, standing alone, be sufficient to warrant an adjustment for obstruction unless it resulted in a material hindrance to the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense or the sentencing of the offender[.]
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(d)). Had this court not previously addressed the ramifications of Louis' attempt to dispose of his jacket and the drugs therein before Louis was sentenced, we would be inclined to heed this amended commentary and reverse the enhancement on this ground. Having previously decided this issue as a matter of law, however, we decline to be bound by guideline commentary changes unless or until Congress amends the guideline itself to reflect the change. See United States v. Stinson, 957 F.2d 813, 815 (11th Cir.1992). So Louis is unable to take advantage of this particular commentary change, and his enhancement for obstruction of justice on the grounds of attempting to destroy evidence contemporaneously with his arrest is affirmed.4
This mix is unusual in the Tallahassee area. Defense counsel admitted at the sentencing hearing that "[t]here is something unique about the benzocaine. I'm going to somewhat concede that point." R2:33
In contrast, at the time of Louis' sentencing in August 1990, neither the Guidelines nor this court had addressed whether Louis' flight and false statements upon arrest justified an enhancement for obstruction. But effective November 1990, modifications to Guidelines commentary clarified the effect of both kinds of conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n. 4(d)) (mere flight from arrest insufficient to justify obstruction enhancement); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n. 4(b)) (making false statements, not under oath, to law enforcement officers insufficient to justify obstruction enhancement unless statements are materially false and significantly obstruct or impede official investigation or prosecution). In the absence of binding circuit precedent or guideline direction effective at the time of Louis' sentencing, we would likely follow the new commentary in our decision today. See United States v. Burton, 933 F.2d 916, 917 (11th Cir.1991) (reviewing new commentary on flight despite defendant's sentencing before effective date of commentary), cf. United States v. Stinson, 957 F.2d 813, 815 (11th Cir.1992)
Louis' run appears to have been instinctive, or "mere flight." And although Louis gave confusing statements to police, we doubt his comments were material to the investigation. See also United States v. Urbanek, 930 F.2d 1512, 1514-15 (10th Cir.1991) (adjustment inappropriate where false statements which investigating officers knew to be false did not impede or obstruct investigation); United States v. Fiala, 929 F.2d 285, 289-90 (7th Cir.1991) (defendant's claim that he did not have anything illegal in his car neither material nor obstructive of investigation); United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1991) (defendant's failure to reveal prior drug transactions to probation officer which he had already disclosed to DEA agents not material). Because Louis' obstruction upgrade may be upheld on the basis of the attempted destruction of evidence, we need not decide the validity of these other grounds.
Home967 f2d 1550 united states v. louis