Opinion ID: 581993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: monyei

Text: 9 The district court found that the evidence did show that Monyei distributed nine ounces of heroin to Montgomery. The testimony of Special Agent Johnson regarding his negotiation meeting with Monyei, Onwujekwe and Montgomery on November 14, 1990, was sufficient evidence to establish the nine ounce quantity. The district court noted that it did not rely on Special Agent Johnson's hearsay testimony (i.e., Montgomery's admission to Johnson that he sold three of the nine ounces before turning six ounces over to the DEA.) Rather, the court used Special Agent Johnson's direct recollection of the events of the face-to-face meeting. Special Agent Johnson's hearsay testimony and Monyei's mathematical computation of the price were used to corroborate the nine ounce determination. 10 Monyei and Onwujekwe offered other uncorroborated testimony about the price term discussed to rebut the conclusion that nine ounces of heroin were involved. For example, discussion took place regarding the compensation for the couriers who brought the narcotics into the country. However, the price term of $74,000 ($14,000 for the couriers and $60,000 for the narcotics) remains unsubstantiated. The district court, therefore, could have properly rejected this proffer of evidence. 11 Monyei also argues that the nine ounce quantity was mentioned only in the second count of the indictment, which was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. This quantity, however, was explicitly referenced in the Overt Acts section of count one, the conspiracy count of the indictment. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit has held that a court may consider quantities of controlled substances in counts dismissed pursuant to plea agreements as relevant conduct [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3] upon a sufficient showing of reliability. United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104, 107-8 (6th Cir.1989). 12 We conclude that the plea agreement incorporated the nine ounces of heroin expressly referenced in count one of the indictment. The Overt Acts section of count one reads in pertinent part: 13 1. On or about November 9, 1990, EMMANUEL MONYEI and VICTOR ONWUJEKWE arrived in the metropolitan Detroit area, from Tennessee, in possession of approximately 9 ounces of Heroin to be distributed in the Eastern District of Michigan. 14 2. On or about November 9, 1990, EMMANUEL MONYEI and VICTOR ONWUJEKWE met with a Confidential Informant, in the Detroit area, and distributed approximately 9 ounces of Heroin to the Confidential Informant. 15 In the alternative, the district court could have certainly concluded that the nine ounce quantity of heroin is simply relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Moreover, Special Agent Johnson testified from first-hand knowledge to the content of the price term discussions at the November 14, 1990, meeting. As the fact finder, the district court could also have accepted this testimony and concluded that the discussions centered around $54,000 and nine ounces of heroin. This finding was corroborated by Montgomery and the written price term of $54,000 provided by Monyei. Accordingly, the district court had sufficient basis upon which to conclude that nine ounces of heroin was the correct measure upon which to base a sentence. 16 Monyei's guideline range was increased because the district court determined that he had a criminal history of category II as of June 20, 1991, following the presentence investigation. Monyei has not contested this corrected history or range of 87-108 months. The district court sentenced Monyei to 91 months in accordance with his Rule 11 plea agreement which contained a four month cap above the lower limit of the applicable guideline range. Monyei received a fair evidentiary hearing in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D), and the district court had an ample basis upon which to find that nine ounces of heroin was involved in the criminal transaction. Accordingly, we reject Monyei's challenge to the sentence imposed by the district court.