Opinion ID: 2996363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Determination of Garvin’s Status as a Career

Text: Offender Garvin next argues that the district court erroneously classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Again, Garvin did not raise this issue below, so our review here is limited to plain error. United States v. Goudy, 78 F.3d 309, 315 (7th Cir. 1996). To receive the classification of “career offender” a defendant must, among other things, have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The district court based its determination that Garvin was a career offender on two prior drug convictions: the first, a 1989 state conviction for delivery of cocaine and the second, a 1993 state conviction also for delivery of cocaine. Garvin maintains that the court should not have considered the 1993 conviction because it was part of, or related to, the instant offense. In United States v. Garecht, we held that under § 4B1.2, if a prior conviction was related to the instant offense then that prior conviction could not be used to elevate a defendant to career offender status. 183 F.3d 671, 675 (7th Cir. Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 41 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 1999).17 To determine whether the prior conviction is related to the instant offense, the guideline commentary directs courts to U.S.S.G. §1B1.3. See U.S.S.G § 4A1.2 cmt. n.1 (“Conduct that is part of the instant offense means conduct that is relevant conduct to the instant offense under the provisions of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).”). “Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, a criminal offense constitutes relevant conduct to another offense if the two offenses are part of a common scheme or plan, connected by at least one common factor (for example, a common victim or purpose).” Garecht, 183 F.3d at 674 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.9). Garvin argues that his 1993 conviction is related to the instant case because that conviction involved the sale of drugs in the same geographic area, involved the same Latin Kings gang, and took place less than a year before the conspiracy charged in this case began. Garvin overlooks, however, that he was not convicted of conspiracy here; rather, he was convicted only of four distribution counts that occurred in 1996. Thus, his attempt to establish a close relation based on time frame clearly does not work. More importantly though, the commentary to § 1B1.3 provides an example situation of where courts should find that two offenses are not related that is almost identical to Garvin’s situation: Examples: (1) The defendant was convicted for the sale of cocaine and sentenced to state prison. Immediately, 17 There was dispute between the majority and dissent in Garecht over whether § 4B1.2 required that the prior convictions be unrelated to the instant offense (majority position) or whether § 4B1.2 only required that the two prior convictions be unrelated to each other. Because Garvin’s argument is rejected under either interpretation we simply accept, without reconsideration, the majority’s position in Garecht on this issue. 42 Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 upon release from prison, he again sold cocaine to the same person, using the same accomplices and modus operandi. The instant federal offense (the offense of conviction) charges this latter sale. In this example, the offense conduct relevant to the state prison sentence is considered as prior criminal history, not as part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.8; see also Garecht, 183 F.3d at 67475 (distinguishing the facts in that case from the above cited example and finding that the defendant’s situation there was more like the second example given in Application Note 8). As even Garvin admits, this example is nearly indistinguishable from his case. In 1993, he was convicted in state court for the delivery of cocaine and sentenced to imprisonment for the offense. In 1996, he again sold drugs, and this violation led to the instant federal offense—precisely the situation that the guidelines tell us does not qualify as a related offense. Therefore, we find no plain error in the district court’s reliance on the 1993 conviction to establish Garvin’s status as a career offender. I. District Court’s Refusal to Grant Garvin a Downward Departure Garvin finally argues that the district court improperly refused to grant him a downward departure from his sentence. It is clear that we lack jurisdiction to review a sentencing court’s refusal to give a downward departure, unless it is established that the sentencing court errantly believed that it lacked the legal authority to grant a downward departure. United States v. Hegge, 196 F.3d 772, 774 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Thus, the only issues we must decide are whether the district court had the authority to depart and if it did, whether it knew Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 43 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 that it had such authority. As to the first issue, the government does not dispute that the district court had the authority to depart downward from the sentencing range set out in the Guidelines; thus, we accept that if the factual circumstances warranted it, the district court could have departed.18 As to the second issue, “[w]e presume that the district court knew that it had authority to depart and simply exercised its discretion not to do so. Defendant bears the burden of convincing us otherwise.” United States v. Larkins, 83 F.3d 162, 168 (7th Cir. 1996). In attempting to meet this burden, Garvin cites to four instances during the sentencing hearing where the district court appears to express doubt as to whether it could depart. The first two came on June 1st: “With respect to your motion for a downward departure, I looked at the cases. It’s actually not so clear to me that there is any circumstance in which the Seventh Circuit will approve a motion for a downward departure.” (6/1/99 Tr. 12.) “I don’t want you to be hopeful. I don’t think that there is a legal basis for [departing].” (6/1/99 Tr. 21.) And the second two both came three days later on June 4th: “I don’t think that I can give [a downward departure]. You know, I mean, I think 262 months is, it is certainly a terribly long sentence.” (6/4/99 Tr. 4.) 18 U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 allows a district court to depart if “the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)); see also United States v. Larkins, 83 F.3d 162, 168 (7th Cir. 1996). 44 Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 “I am looking at it, is he out of the heartland of what the guidelines say when I could conceivably give a departure . . . if any are really permitted in this circuit, which I question.” (6/4/99 Tr. 6.) We agree with Garvin that these statements alone are cause for some concern. A closer analysis of the context of the statements and the overall sentencing hearing, however, reveals that the district court did go through the proper steps to determine whether, based on the facts of Garvin’s case, she should exercise her discretion to depart. In Koon v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that a sentencing judge considering a motion for down- ward departure should review the case for factors sufficiently unusual to take the case out of the Guidelines’ “heartland.” 518 U.S. 81, 92-95 (1996). We have held that under Koon, factors that might take a case out of the heartland fall into four categories: (1) forbidden factors (such as race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, socioeconomic status, or drug addiction), which can never be considered as a basis for departure, (2) discouraged factors (such as age or education), which can be considered relevant only in “exceptional cases,” (3) encouraged factors (such as defendant’s role in the offense), which are “explicitly contemplated as grounds for departure,” and (4) unmentioned factors. United States v. Sewell, 159 F.3d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1998). In the case now before us, the district court and the attorneys engaged in a lengthy discussion about whether Garvin’s situation fell outside the “heartland” and what factors could be considered in making such a determination. We review this discussion at length because it is only in analyzing it in full that we can determine if the district court knew that it could depart. The first discusNos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 45 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 sion about departure occurred near the beginning of the two day hearing. Here, the judge made the first state- ment that Garvin cites as support for his claim. This statement does appear to reveal some indecision on the part of the judge about her authority to depart, but Garvin does not cite the immediately following statement where the judge noted that, in deciding whether she should depart, she could not consider the fact that Garvin was a drug addict as a factor in the departure determination— “[t]hat’s a forbidden basis.” This statement reveals that the judge was apparently aware of our decision in Sewell and that, at least, she was going to work under the assumption that she could depart. The second statement (“I don’t think there is a legal basis [to depart]”), when read in context, is simply the judge’s reiteration that drug addiction is not a factor which would allow her to depart. That this is what the judge is talking about is seen in Garvin’s attorney’s re- sponse: “Well, Judge, addiction is not (a legal basis) but that was only one element.” (6/1/99 Tr. 21.) After this, the defense attorney, the court, and the government discuss the fact that in Sewell, we held that a defendant’s participation in the offense is an encouraged factor to consider in departing. (Id. at Tr. 22-25.) In response to the defendant’s argument that Garvin’s participation in the conspiracy was minimal (and thus “not within the heartland” (id. at Tr. 22)), the district court noted that Garvin was not convicted of conspiracy; therefore, the proper inquiry was his role in the four individual distributions, not his role in the conspiracy. (Id. at Tr. 22.) Ultimately, the hearing on June 1 concluded without the judge making a decision on the matter. She stated that she needed more time because originally she had not closely analyzed the cases submitted by the government because after reviewing the defense’s cases she “didn’t think there was 46 Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 a sufficient [basis] for a departure.” (Id. at Tr. 27.) Thus, at the conclusion of the hearing on June 1, it is apparent that the judge believed, or at least assumed, she could depart but did not see a factual basis for doing so. The June 4 hearing began with the judge stating that after reviewing the evidence and the relevant cases, she had not changed her mind: “I don’t find any, having looked at all of that, I don’t find any basis for changing the guideline range.” (6/4/99 Tr. 2.) After discussion of some other topics, the defense attorney returned to the issue of departure, to which the court responded with the third statement that Garvin cites for support (“I don’t think I can give it. You know, I mean, I think 262 months is . . . a terribly long sentence”). This statement, however, when read in context, actually reveals that the judge did believe that she could depart but that she did not think there was a basis to do so here. Immediately after the statement, the judge reasons that she cannot give a departure because the fact that “he’s a drug addict . . . is something I actually can’t take into account in terms of departure.” (6/4/99 Tr. 4.) Garvin’s attorney then raised the argument again that Garvin played a small role in this conspiracy. The judge again responded by noting “[t]hat would be perfectly appropriate if we were talking about putting his role in terms of something as a whole. But all he’s being sentenced on are four separate sales. . . .” (Id. at Tr. 5.) Later in the hearing, the judge stated that in making her determination of whether to depart she was considering whether “he [is] out of the heartland of what the guidelines say when I could conceivably give a departure . . . if any are really permitted in this circuit, which I question.” (Id. at Tr. 6.) This statement does indeed reveal that the judge may not have been entirely clear that she could depart, but it also reveals that she was assuming that she could—why else would she need to go through the Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 47 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 heartland analysis? Ultimately, the judge determined that Garvin’s case was not outside the heartland, stating, “I mean, he was walking down the street and selling these drugs with kids running around right in front of him . . . . And so the kids will grow up and do the same thing be- cause . . . that is what people that they look up to are doing. So am I sure it’s out of the heartland? No, I don’t know that it is. But go on if you have more to say.” (Id. at Tr. 8.) To this Garvin’s attorney responded that “[i]f Your Honor has made up your mind that it’s not out of the heartland, I am not going to belabor the point with this Court.” (Id.) At this point, the judge moved on to another issue. The only logical interpretation then is that the judge had considered the arguments urging her to depart and had determined that Garvin’s case was not out of the heartland. Therefore, even though we are somewhat troubled by the district court’s musings on the record that she was not entirely sure she could depart, the fact that she, at the very least, assumed that she could depart and conducted the “heartland” analysis, leads us to the conclusion that a remand is not appropriate here. Further, given that the district court already conducted the heartland analysis, it is not clear what would be gained even if we were to remand—i.e., the district court has already decided that departure is not warranted, and on remand we would simply be telling the court to conduct the same analysis again. Garvin’s challenge is therefore rejected. J. Rosario’s Non-Apprendi Claims 1. Agent Schulte’s Alleged Signals and Gestures at Trial Rosario claims that during trial FBI Agent Schulte was signaling and gesturing to witnesses on the stand. He 48 Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 argues that because the jurors may have seen this and may have been influenced by it, he should be given a new trial. Although some of the defense attorneys briefly discussed the issue with the court at trial, no formal objection was ever made, and neither Rosario nor his attorney raised the issue before this appeal. Therefore, again, our review is only for plain error, and we note that Rosario’s burden is particularly high here because “[t]he district court will always be in a better position than the appellate judges to assess the probable reactions of jurors in a case over which he [or she] has presided.” United States v. Berry, 92 F.3d 597, 600 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Bruscino, 687 F.2d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 1982) (en banc)). Rosario provides no evidence of any wrongdoing nor any evidence of prejudice. In fact, the defense attorneys that did raise the issue at trial all stated that they did not think there was any wrongdoing. For example, Diaz’s attorney told the court, “I did observe Agent Schulte nodding. I don’t say that it was conscious . . . I don’t think it was conscious, of course.” (Tr. 1266-67.) And Stevenson’s attorney stated, “I have been watching Mr. Schulte and I do not doubt . . . that what he’s saying is the truth, and I don’t believe that any of this is being telegraphed. But I must say this: as a result of watching Mr. Schulte, he’s . . . expressive . . . . And I’m not suggesting that they’re— he’s telegraphing it at all. I think it’s just his personal mannerisms. ” (Tr. 1267-68.) Nothing more was ever made of this issue. Given that even the defense attorneys suggested that there was no real issue here, we think that the district court properly handled the matter. Rosario’s claim is rejected. Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 49 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 2. District Court’s Enhancement of Rosario’s Sentence At sentencing, the district court applied a four-point enhancement under U.S.S.G § 3B1.1(a) for Rosario’s role as a leader of the conspiracy and a two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for the possession of firearms during the commission of the offense. Rosario argues that these enhancements were improper. A sentencing court’s factual determination concerning a defendant’s role as a leader is subject to a clearly erroneous standard, United States v. Hardamon, 188 F.3d 843, 851 (7th Cir. 1999), as is its factual determination that the defendant possessed a firearm. United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1435 (7th Cir. 1994). Because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the application of both enhancements, we find no clear error. Section 3B1.1(a) instructs a sentencing court as follows: “If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The record shows that in 1995 Rosario was elected to the position of “Inca” (the leader of the gang) by his fellow gang members. Audio tapes of gang meetings reveal Rosario inquiring about who was doing security on Nation Days and directing enforcers to do their job. Further, the government presented evidence that Rosario determined when Nation Days would take place and how often, and that he presided over the meetings at which the leaders of the gang discussed their drug business. Rosario’s primary argument is that it was Juan Hernandez, the gang’s treasurer, who really directed the activities on Nation Days. Rosario neglects to mention that he was the one who personally appointed Juan Hernandez to serve in this role. More importantly, while the evidence 50 Nos. 99-2299, 99-2505, 99-2514, 99-2570, 99-2598, 99-2763, 99-2983, 01-1690 does show that Juan Hernandez did play a central role, Rosario does not dispute that an organization can have more than one leader. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. And the evidence here shows that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that Rosario was a leader of this conspiracy. Likewise, we affirm the district court’s enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. Under § 2D1.1(b)(1), a defendant “possesses” firearms if he actually or constructively possessed the gun. United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 763-64 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, “a defendant can be held responsible for a co-defendant’s possession of a weapon if that possession was in furtherance of . . . jointly undertaken criminal activity and was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” Id. at 764 (quoting United States v. Taylor, 111 F.3d 56, 59 (7th Cir. 1997)). The audio tapes presented by the government provide various examples of Rosario inquiring about the gang’s guns. Further, there was much evidence that the gang stored guns at members’ houses and that co-conspirators used guns for security on Nation Days. Thus, there was no clear error in the district court’s determination that Rosario possessed firearms. Rosario’s final argument that the government failed to prove that the substance involved was crack cocaine as opposed to some other type of cocaine base also fails because the government did introduce sufficient evidence to establish that crack cocaine was the substance that Rosario and the other gang members distributed. Therefore, Rosario’s sentence is affirmed.