Opinion ID: 656603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Raji

Text: 26 Raji was held responsible for the quantity of heroin sold on the streets in its user-strength form. The evidence showed that, prior to its sale at retail, the heroin had been cut three or four times, although at times only twice. Tr. 49, 429-30, 566, 658. The district court determined that Raji knew that the heroin would be diluted to some degree because he knows that the dealer he is supplying would not be able to turn a profit without some degree of dilution. Tr. 716. The court looked to what Raji could reasonably anticipate the wholesale strength heroin to be diluted that would return a significant, indeed, substantial profit to Cole. Id. According to the evidence, if Cole purchased an ounce of heroin at wholesale strength for $3,000 and sold it uncut, he would sell it for approximately $1,800, at a loss of $1,200. 2 Tr. 503. If the heroin was cut once, Cole would have a gross profit of $600 which, given his overhead and the risks involved, would yield no [net] profit. Tr. 504-05, 716-17. The district judge concluded that if the heroin had been cut twice for a gross profit of $2,400, Cole would have a profit that would be reasonably foreseeable to a supplier. Tr. 505, 514. He found that Raji could reasonably foresee that Cole would cut the heroin twice. Tr. 716-17. 27 Raji contends that the record does not support the district court's finding that he knew Cole cut the heroin prior to distribution. There is no evidence that he helped Cole or others redistribute the drugs, nor was the money he earned based upon a share in the success or failure of the network. Rather, Raji asserts, the only evidence is the judge's presumption that Cole could only make a substantial profit if the heroin were cut. Raji argues that his interest did not go beyond that of making a sale to Cole and that the scope of his agreement with the conspiracy must encompass more than the mechanics of downstream commerce. He additionally contends that, even if he was subjectively aware of the cutting, this was insufficient to include the cutting within the scope of his agreement with Cole. Raji refers to Edwards, where we stated: 28 [R]easonable foreseeability means more than subjective awareness on the part of individual defendants that Cole headed a long-standing and successful heroin distribution network. Given the notoriety of the Cole network, each defendant here can be ascribed with said awareness.... Of particular importance in determining the level of commitment on the part of an individual defendant is the scope of the agreement between that defendant and his co-conspirators. 29 Edwards, 945 F.2d at 1393-34. 30 Here, Raji played an essential role in the Cole conspiracy by acting as Cole's sole supplier for a period of twenty-two weeks. The deliveries by Raji of wholesale-strength heroin to the Cole organization were not sporadic. The evidence showed that there were at least twenty-one packages delivered to the warehouse between October 6 to November 7, 1988. The evidence also demonstrated that Raji was in constant contact with Cole, the central organizer of the heroin distribution scheme. The evidence shows that Raji made a number of phone calls to both the residence where Cole stored his packages, as well as the workhouse where Cole based his drug operation. Tr. 683, 715. It appears that Raji was being kept apprised of the circumstances affecting the existence of the drug operation. For example, Cain called Raji after the police executed a search of the workhouse and arrested one of the street dealers. Tr. 678. Clearly, Raji's knowledge and commitment to the conspiracy went deeper than the mere sale of heroin to Cole. 31 In light of Raji's involvement, we do not believe Raji was so naive about the mechanics of Cole's distribution scheme that he could not foresee that Cole would cut the heroin prior to selling it on the streets. Without an ongoing supply of heroin from Raji, Cole could not have continued his operation. However, if Cole was unable to resell the heroin at a price sufficient to cover his expenses and to take into account the risk involved, Raji would not have continued to profit from his sales to Cole. We think the court took a modest approach by holding Raji accountable for the heroin twice cut. Although Cole could make a profit by cutting the heroin twice, the evidence demonstrated that the heroin was typically cut three or four times prior to its sale. It was not clear error for the district court to conclude that Raji could reasonably have foreseen that the heroin would be cut twice prior to its sale on the streets. 32 Based on the foregoing discussion, we AFFIRM.