Opinion ID: 3000920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Emerson’s Sentence

Text: With regard to his sentence, Emerson challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for possession of a weapon and the denial of a downward Nos. 05-3303 and 05-3336 15 adjustment for his minor role in the offense. Our review of both challenges is for clear error. See United States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551, 557 (7th Cir. 2007) (sentencing court’s fact-finding on the weapon’s enhancement is reviewed for clear error); United States v. SandovalVasquez, 435 F.3d 739, 745 (7th Cir. 2006) (sentencing court’s denial of a minor participant adjustment is reviewed for clear error). We find no clear error with regard to Emerson’s sentence.
Emerson contends that the district court erred in applying a weapons enhancement to his offense level pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1), an argument he failed to raise first in the district court. Our review is therefore for plain error, but we find no error here. “Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) makes clear that defendants can also be on the hook for firearms possessed by their coconspirators so long as such possession was reasonably foreseeable.” United States v. Artley, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1598108 n.5 (7th Cir. June 5, 2007) (quoting Luster, 480 F.3d at 558). The record was replete with evidence that firearms were involved in the drug lick. Not only was Emerson himself heard on tape expressing his concerns about not being able to obtain a gun in time for the lick, Ingram is heard discussing his 9 mm “heater” and explaining to those present at the November 20 meeting, including Emerson, that everyone would be armed during the robbery. Such evidence established that it was clearly foreseeable to Emerson that his co-conspirators would have firearms in their possession when committing the lick. Based on this record, the district court did not err in applying the two-level firearm enhancement to Emerson’s sentence. 16 Nos. 05-3303 and 05-3336
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level decrease in offense level when the defendant is a “minor participant” in the offense. Sandoval-Vasquez, 435 F.3d at 745. The relevant commentary defines “minor participant” as a defendant “who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant” and “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” Id. A “minimal participant,” a defendant who is plainly among the least culpable of those involved, may receive a four-level downward decrease in offense level. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 comment (n. 1). The defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to either adjustment. In rejecting Emerson’s request for a downward adjustment for his role, the district court explained that while Emerson did not play a leadership or managerial role in the planned robbery, the role that he had agreed to play was neither minor nor minimal: “He agreed to go in and was prepared to go in with a gun, ready to carry out the robbery and ready to use the gun, if needed.” The district court also recognized that Emerson was to receive a portion of the cocaine recovered during the lick despite not being allowed to participate in the robbery. He stood to profit from the conspiracy without having to perform the robbery itself, which does not suggest that he was less culpable than the others. In any event, while it is possible that the district court could have found Emerson to be less culpable than his co-conspirators who were seized in the storage facility while attempting the drug lick, the district court did not do so, and Emerson has not shown that this was clear error. Nos. 05-3303 and 05-3336 17