Opinion ID: 2994289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on Palmer’s Testimony in

Text: Determining Relevant Conduct Dikeocha also argues on appeal that the judge improperly relied on the transcripts of statements made by Larry Palmer, an unindicted co-conspirator, who testified during the 1991 trial of Dikeocha’s co-conspirators./4 Palmer’s testimony from the previous trial included accounts of several drug smuggling expeditions involving himself, Vincent and Gibson Nwafor, Charles Emenogha, the defendant, Ebenezer Dikeocha, and others. Dikeocha claims that Palmer’s testimony linking him to 3.5 kilograms of heroin, an amount which the trial judge found to be conservative, was untrustworthy. [I]t is the sentencing judge alone who, based upon the evidence received, decides the identity and quantity of the drug distributed in an offense. . . . [I]n making these findings, he consider[s] the credibility, knowledge, and experience of the witnesses and determine[s] the reliability of a permissibly-broad range of evidence, including hearsay. United States v. Branch 195 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus, [w]e review deferentially, looking only for clear er ror, a district court’s calculation of drug quantities under the guidelines. United States v. Robinson, 164 F.3d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 628 (1999). Further, the information relied upon by the district court for purposes of determining relevant conduct at sentencing need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather the testimony relied upon by the court must possess a sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910, 920-21 (7th Cir. 2000). We reject Dikeocha’s assertion that the trial court improperly relied upon Larry Palmer’s testimony. The court’s ruling that Palmer’s testimony at the previous trial possessed sufficient indicia of reliability was proper in that his testimony implicating Dikeocha was detailed, based upon personal knowledge, and subject to a thorough cross- examination by three attorneys acting on behalf of Dikeocha’s co-conspirators, resulting in what amounts to almost 100 pages of trial transcript. The three different attorneys representing Dikeocha’s co-conspirators vigorously cross-examined Palmer at trial, grilling him extensively on topics like his potential bias, his deal with the government, his own heroin dealing, his involvement in insurance fraud, and so on./5 Furthermore, Palmer’s testimony regarding Dikeocha’s participation in the conspiracy was consistent with, and supported by, other testimony presented at Dikeocha’s trial. Finally, Dikeocha never saw fit to present any evidence to contradict Palmer’s testimony that he was responsible for 3.5 kilograms of heroin. See United States v. Amerson, 185 F.3d 676, 689 (7th Cir. 1998) (A defendant’s self-serving assertions may be discredited by the court when they find no support in any facts, any exhibits, evidence, and/or logical reasoning.). A trial judge’s determination of the amount of drugs constituting the defendant’s relevant conduct will not be set aside unless we were to find clear error in the court’s findings upon review or it was established that it was based upon unreliable information. See Robinson, 164 F.3d at 1070. We hold that the trial court’s determination of the drug quantity constituting Dikeocha’s relevant conduct for sentencing purposes was not clearly erroneous because there is far more than a sufficient indicia of reliability to support the probable accuracy of the 1991 trial testimony of the absent witness, Palmer. The defendant’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. /1 In United States v. Emenogha, 1 F.3d 473, 476 (7th Cir. 1993), this court described the key players in the conspiracy as follows: Vincent Nwafor, the prime mover in the enterprise, organized the purchases and the subsequent distributions. Gibson Nwafor, Vincent’s brother, handled the financialarrangements. Gibson Nwafor held the profits at his own apartment, converted the proceeds to larger bills for easier handling at various Chicago banks, and wire-transferred money out of the country on Vincent Nwafor’s behalf. Mr. Emenogha, who is the Nwafors’ cousin, acted as a courier and brought heroin to Chicago from Nigeria on at least three occasions. The operation was assisted by [the defendant in the instant case] Ebenezer Dikeocha, who smuggled heroin into the United States and distributed it at least once in conjunction with Vincent Nwafor. Additional distributors were Andy Uwazoke and Ike Agu. Larry Palmer, a/k/a Lawrence Ofuokwu (hereinafter Palmer), an uncharged member of the conspiracy, traveled to Nigeria to purchase heroin; he pled guilty to a drug charge in Maryland and agreed to cooperate with the United States in investigating other members of the conspiracy. Other couriers for the conspiracy were Tracy Ousley, Beverly (last name not known), and Darlene Sumpter, Vincent Nwafor’s girlfriend, who contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1989 and agreed to cooperate in arranging an undercover purchase of heroin between Vincent Nwafor and Chicago police officer Regina Joanes. /2 The cell phone was subscribed to by an Andy Okoro with a billing address at 1415 West Pratt, Chicago, Illinois. At the same time in 1990, Ameritech billed Ebenezer Dikeocha for home telephone service at the same address. /3 The record does not reflect when Dikeocha was able to re-enter the United States. /4 The judge relied on transcripts of Palmer’s testimony when sentencing Dikeocha in 1999 because Palmer was unavailable to testify as he was out of the country in Nigeria at the time of Dikeocha’s trial and sentencing. /5 Dikeocha asserts that it was unfair for the district court to rely on Larry Palmer’s testimony because his counsel did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him, as Palmer was in Nigeria and therefore unavailable to testify at Dikeocha’s trial. However, the fact that Dikeocha did not have the opportunity to cross- examine Palmer is a problem of his own making for he had departed from the country at the time of the scheduled trial. Had Dikeocha not been a fugitive until 1997, he more than likely would have been tried with his co-conspirators in 1991, and would have had the opportunity to personally cross-examine Palmer at that time.