Opinion ID: 682476
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement for Possession of a Dangerous Weapon

Text: 18 The appellant argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines, which provides that [i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed, increase [the base offense level] by 2 levels. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). The Guidelines commentary states that this enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. Id. Sec. 2D1.1(b)(2) comment. (n. 3). 19 The district court's finding on this issue was based upon testimony from Charles Shaw, the government's key witness in the prior trial involving Linnear's co-conspirators. Shaw asserted that he had walked into a residence where Linnear was packaging two kilograms of cocaine and that Linnear pulled a handgun on Shaw but put it away when he recognized him. 20 Linnear contends that the district court should not have relied upon Shaw's statements because defense counsel had cast doubt on Shaw's credibility by showing that he had been given immunity from prosecution, that he had gotten out of problems with law enforcement officials when government agents intervened on his behalf, and that he was less than accurate on his facts. The appellant argues that there is no corroboration for Shaw's testimony from any source and, therefore, the finding regarding the gun was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 This circuit, however, has never held that corroboration is essential in sentencing. United States v. Atkin, 29 F.3d 267, 268 (7th Cir.1994). [C]orroboration is a step toward, but no guarantee of, reliability. Sometimes the corroboration is illusory; sometimes hearsay is rock solid without corroboration. Id. In this case, the district judge had an opportunity to observe Shaw testify in the earlier proceeding and to consider his testimony in the context of all of the evidence regarding the conspiracy. 2 Because Shaw's statements regarding other aspects of the conspiracy were corroborated by other witnesses, the district court could properly find that his testimony regarding the gun was also reliable despite the fact that it was uncorroborated. 22 Although Shaw has received certain benefits for testifying for the government, that fact alone does not render his testimony unreliable. [W]e have made clear on several occasions that at sentencing the 'testimony of one witness, even one arguably biased against the defendant, is sufficient to support a finding of fact.'  United States v. Lindsey, 30 F.3d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Cedano-Rojas, 999 F.2d 1175, 1180 (7th Cir.1993)). [S]o long as the information which the sentencing judge considers has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, the information may properly be taken into account in passing sentence. United States v. Lueddeke, 908 F.2d 230, 234 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Miller, 891 F.2d 1265, 1270 (7th Cir.1989)). 23 Linnear's attempts to portray Shaw's testimony as inaccurate are unpersuasive. Linnear first points to Shaw's statement that Linnear had paid him $500 for various dealings and that Linnear had given him $500 within a few days after August 25, 1990. Linnear argues that the statement is untrue because jail and court records show that Linnear was arrested on August 23, 1990, and not released until August 29, 1990. Thus he contends that he could not possibly have made the payment at the time described by Shaw. However, Shaw's statement was not that the payment was made on August 25, 1990; rather, he stated that the transaction occurred a few days after that date. If the payment was made soon after Linnear's release on bond, that transaction would still be within a few days after August 25, 1990. Thus, the jail records do not refute Shaw's testimony. 24 Linnear also argues that Shaw incorrectly stated that Linnear had operated a drug house at 12th and Center street in Milwaukee. During the sentencing hearing, the government conceded that Shaw was not the actual operator of the house. However, Linnear admitted that he supplied drugs to the person who did operate the house. In short, Shaw's characterization of Linnear's involvement was not entirely accurate. However, this minor discrepancy does not undermine the overall reliability of Shaw's testimony linking Linnear to the drug house--much less the reliability of his testimony regarding Linnear's possession of a gun. 25 Significantly, Linnear failed to present any evidence or testimony on this issue other than his own statement denying that he had a gun as alleged by Shaw. Although the district court characterized the witnesses as two liars, the court ultimately determined that Shaw was more credible. The district court indicated that it was familiar with Shaw, having heard him testify in the previous case. The court further found that Linnear's credibility was nil because he had written a letter to a potential witness which the court construed as an attempt to suborn perjury. 3 26 Special deference must be accorded to the lower court's credibility determinations because 'only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding of and belief in what is said.'  United States v. Hamm, 13 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Matter of Weber, 892 F.2d 534, 538 (7th Cir.1989)). Based upon the trial court's observation of the witnesses and its knowledge of the conspiracy as a whole, we cannot say that the court's credibility determination in favor of Shaw was clearly erroneous.2. Defendant's Role in the Offense 27 The appellant argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for his role in the offense pursuant to Guidelines section 3B1.1(b), which provides for a three-level increase [i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.... U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(b). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the government made no recommendation regarding an enhancement under this provision at the time of sentencing, but argues on appeal that the district court's decision is amply supported by the record. 28 In finding that the enhancement was warranted, the district court relied upon Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Scott Perala's statement that Linnear had supervised seven individuals in the conspiracy. Linnear denied the allegation and argues that there is no corroborating evidence to support Perala's statement. Thus, Linnear contends that Perala's allegation cannot be shown to be reliable. 29 The district court, however, found that Perala's statement was supported by the totality of evidence presented at the sentencing hearing and at the prior trial involving the co-conspirators. As the district judge observed: [T]he testimony is replete with references to his role in terms of supplying, in terms of directing, in terms of paying, and I am also satisfied that he was a leader of the 118th Street East Coast Crips and that he remained in charge of the conspiracy as an ultimate leader even though he was incarcerated in California. Sentencing Tr. at 45. 30 Linnear made no attempt to rebut or otherwise challenge the reliability of the evidence presented during the prior trial. Accordingly, we find that the district court's finding regarding Linnear's role in the offense is not clearly erroneous. 3. Obstruction of Justice 31 Guidelines section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level increase in a defendant's base offense level [i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.... U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1. The district court found this enhancement applicable based upon allegations that (1) Linnear sent a letter soliciting false testimony from potential witness Brandon Arnold, a Crip gang member who was incarcerated in a California prison for murder; and (2) Linnear attempted to escape from the Waukesha County Jail while being detained there pending trial. 32 Linnear argues that there was insufficient evidence to support either factual finding. He admits that he wrote the letter to Arnold and that he was trying to prepare Arnold for his anticipated testimony. However, he contends that the district court overreacted in viewing the letter as an attempt to solicit perjury. 33 To the contrary, even a cursory review of the document indicates that the district court's assessment was not clearly erroneous. For example, the letter states that I am tring [sic] to put this move in motion and I need you to throw down with me in this move that I am tring [sic] to Orchestrate. It then goes on to give Arnold detailed instructions as to how he should testify when asked various questions about Linnear and other aspects of the drug conspiracy. The letter then states that if this shit go through right, then I can get up out of here. And if I do, I will make sure you get up out of there you know. Even If I have to go and find that fool that lived on Imperial and give him $20,000 to change his whole story, and say that homicide told him to say that shit, you know. 34 Linnear contends that the letter cannot constitute obstruction of justice because Arnold never testified in the case and, therefore, did not commit perjury. The appellant, however, fails to recognize that section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines clearly punishes attempts to obstruct justice as well as actual obstruction of justice. United States v. Caicedo, 937 F.2d 1227, 1235 (7th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Gaddy, 909 F.2d 196, 199 (7th Cir.1990) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 35 As for the escape attempt, the government made an offer of proof that during a shakedown at the jail, a jailer saw Linnear throw a toothbrush box in a garbage can in his cell. The box was retrieved, and authorities found a hacksaw blade inside. Further investigation revealed a metal heating grate at the back of Linnear's cell had been hacksawed on all soldering joints. 36 Linnear denied being involved in any escape attempt but declined further comment because of possible criminal prosecution and failed to present any other evidence to rebut the government's allegation. In fact, Linnear's counsel stated that he had no basis to contest the government's offer of proof. His only argument is that the government's evidence, while suggestive, was not sufficient for the court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Linnear was engaged in an escape attempt. Based upon the government's offer of proof, however, we find that the district court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. 37 The Guidelines commentary states that the obstruction enhancement is warranted for committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury and escaping or attempting to escape from custody before trial or sentencing.... U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 comment. (n. 3(b), (e)). Having found that Linnear engaged in both types of conduct, the district court correctly assessed a two-level enhancement against Linnear under this provision. 4. Acceptance of Responsibility 38 The appellant argues that he should have been given credit for acceptance of responsibility under Guidelines section 3E1.1. The district court, however, denied the reduction based upon allegations that Linnear tried to minimize his involvement in the conspiracy and tried to escape from custody. 4 39 At the outset we note that Linnear objected to the reference to the escape attempt in this section of his presentence report because he was already subject to an enhancement under section 3C1.1 for this conduct. The Guidelines commentary suggests that there is some merit to this argument. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1 comment. (n. 4) (Conduct resulting in an enhancement under Sec. 3C1.1 ... ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. There may, however, be extraordinary cases in which adjustments under both Secs. 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply.). But the appellant did not argue the issue in his brief on appeal and, therefore, has waived it. 40 Moreover, we find ample support for the district court's conclusion that Linnear attempted to minimize his role in the offense. As discussed above, the district court found that Linnear falsely denied possessing a gun while engaged in a drug offense and falsely denied that he had a supervisory role in the organization. The district court also rejected other meritless objections Linnear raised to the presentence report's description of his conduct in the conspiracy. 41 [A] defendant who falsely denies ... relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Rosalez-Cortez, 19 F.3d 1210, 1219 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 1(a))). We find, therefore, that the district court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the defendant had attempted to minimize his role and was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 42