Opinion ID: 4435051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lloyd Montgomery

Text: As in his prior appeal, Montgomery challenges the district court’s determination that he was responsible for the sale of 5,000 oxymorphone pills from February 2013 to October 2015, arguing that the evidence does not support that estimated quantity.
In order to assess whether the record supports the district court’s estimate, a review of the evidence of the drug activity in this case is warranted. In February 2013, police executed a search warrant on a residence in Clarksville and recovered bottles containing 22 suspected oxymorphone pills and 64 suspected oxycodone pills, as well as other suspected drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. A woman with whom Montgomery was in a relationship was present and informed police that, while Montgomery did not reside at the house, he paid the rent and visited the house at will. She also told police that he sold pills from the residence. Anthony Seay was one of the cooperating witnesses at Merriweather’s trial. Seay began cooperating with police after police executed a search warrant on Seay’s house, in order to avoid prosecution for his own drug distribution. In Seay’s initial interview, he told police that Montgomery had been selling 15mg Opana (oxymorphone) pills for $60 each since 2013 and that he sponsored twelve people to secure prescription drugs from Clarksville doctor offices. Seay also mentioned Montgomery’s ownership of the “Stacker” house, the main locus of the conspiracy. In another interview, Seay initially estimated that he had bought oxymorphone and oxycodone from Montgomery about 50 times. He then re-estimated in terms of purchases-per-week, stating that he had purchased drugs from Montgomery several times per week for three years, though not every -3- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. week, and had on occasion purchased multiple times in one day. He noted that Montgomery always kept the pills for sale in a prescription bottle. He also stated that there were “always a bunch of people at Stacker.” Finally, in another interview, Seay stated that Montgomery would accept goods instead of money for the drugs, including tires, jewelry, firearms, etc. Seay also estimated that Montgomery was paying (and sometimes transporting) three or four people to go to doctor appointments and get prescriptions. Raymond Poindexter was the second cooperating witness at Merriweather’s trial. Poindexter was already incarcerated for a theft conviction when he began cooperating with police. Poindexter was a pill addict when he learned about Montgomery’s sales, and he stated that, in 2015, he bought one to three oxymorphone pills from Montgomery every day for about two-and- a-half months, totaling at least 150 pills. He also told police that Montgomery carries three bottles of pills with him to sell, two bottles of oxymorphone and a bottle of other varieties. He also noted that Montgomery would fill prescriptions at Walmart and K-Mart, and that he once saw Montgomery sell half a prescription—30 pills—in under an hour. Poindexter financed his own drug habit by stealing goods from stores to trade to Montgomery. In another interview with investigators, Poindexter positively identified Montgomery, Merriweather, and Lucas and stated that all three sold drugs out of Stacker and that at least one of them was always present. At trial, Seay testified that he began buying pills from Montgomery about eight years prior and that he always purchased oxymorphone, even though Montgomery also carried oxycodone. Seay testified that he purchased pills two or three times a week, though he had on occasion purchased drugs more than once in the same day. He also noted that Montgomery kept the pills in a bottle on his person. While Seay purchased drugs at several locations, the main location was Stacker, where Seay said “there would always be a bunch of people in the house, cars parked -4- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. everywhere.” Seay noted that he saw others purchase drugs from Montgomery at the house on several occasions, and reaffirmed that Montgomery took goods in trade. He also testified that one of his friends was one of the people Montgomery paid to go to a particular local doctor—Doctor Orusa—and get pill prescriptions. Finally, he stated that he had signed a nonprosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony and confirmed that police had used him to make controlled narcotics buys from the defendants. Poindexter also testified at Merriweather’s trial, where he told the jury that he began buying from Montgomery about the time he got out of prison early in 2015, and that he would steal items and trade them to Montgomery for pills on “almost a daily basis.” Poindexter testified that he purchased drugs at Stacker, where there would usually be “a couple people in the living room, people in the kitchen selling pills,” and that drugs could be had at almost any time of day or night. Even if Montgomery wasn’t there, someone would be there to sell. Poindexter also recounted running into Montgomery once at K-Mart, where Montgomery had dropped a woman off to fill a pill prescription, and he testified that Montgomery usually sent people to Dr. Orusa to get the prescriptions. Finally, Poindexter stated that he had been offered a nonprosecution agreement in exchange for his cooperation. Evidence of drug activity also derives from data retrieved from Montgomery and Merriweather’s phones, which contained various calls among members of the conspiracy and text messages from people looking to buy and sell pills. Dozens of text messages reference oxymorphone, oxycodone, stolen merchandise for trade, doctor appointments, and prescriptions. Police also executed at least eleven controlled buys of narcotics from the defendants with the aid of Seay. Montgomery was the seller in most of the transactions and aided with the rest. Nearly all of the buys yielded two oxymorphone pills each. -5- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al.
We review the district court’s drug-quantity determination for clear error. United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 570 (6th Cir. 2008). If the exact amount of drugs is undetermined, the court may make an estimate, but the estimate must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In so doing, the court may rely on physical evidence and testimonial evidence, even where the testimony is given by a witness who may receive a reduced sentence in exchange for testifying. See id.; United States v. Henley, 360 F.3d 509, 516 (6th Cir. 2004). But the court should err on the side of caution, and the finding must have “some minimum indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.” United States v. Ward, 68 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1995). “A district court's approximation of drug quantity is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by competent evidence in the record.” Jeross, 521 F.3d at 570. In reviewing a district court’s drug-quantity determination, “a key issue is the extent to which the court identified the evidence on which it relied.” Henley, 360 F.3d at 515 (collecting cases). The court has a “duty to support its finding” regarding the total drug quantity involved in a conspiracy. United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686, 698 (6th Cir. 2000). Where the court “fails to identify the evidence on which it relied,” we have remanded for resentencing. Ward, 68 F.3d at 149. See also United States v. Cook, 13 F. App’x 331, 339 (6th Cir. 2001); Hernandez, 227 F.3d at 698; United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302–03 (6th Cir. 1990). Montgomery’s presentence report recommended a finding that the conspiracy was responsible for the distribution of ten pills a day, or 9,500 oxymorphone pills over the course of 950 days, which would yield a base offense level of 34.1 At Montgomery’s initial sentencing, the 1 According to the government, an oxymorphone pill weighs 220mg per pill, so the total weight of 9,500 pills is 2,090 grams, which converts to 10,450kg of marijuana under the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3) and application note 8(D). -6- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. district court expressed discomfort with this estimate, especially because the court did not regard Seay and Poindexter as “particularly reliable” witnesses. After a recess, the court announced a new estimate of 5,000 pills, or just over five pills per day, without offering any explanation of the figure.2 Apparently concerned with the court’s lack of analysis, the government asked for “a little more specificity” for purposes of appeal, to which the court replied: Well, specificity is I’m recalling the testimony of the two witnesses and all the other testimony and the factors that you’ve mentioned. I’ve considered your calculations. As far as going by each witness and each day and figuring out exactly how many pills, I can’t do that, but I think that 5,000 is a good conservative estimate based on the continuing activity, and that’s as specific as I can get. R. 295, Sentencing Hr’g Tr., PID 2941. In Montgomery’s initial appeal, we vacated his sentence because we agreed that the district court failed to identify any of the facts upon which it relied or to explain its determination, beyond the “hazy generality” of a reference to “continuing activity.” Merriweather, 728 F. App’x at 521. We then remanded for resentencing, allowing that 5,000 pills might be a reasonable estimate but directing that the district court make “particularized findings” to support its determination. Id. On remand, the parties reviewed the evidence of drug activity in the case, after which the court stated the following: I'm satisfied that the 5,000 pills is the appropriate amount. This finding is based on the testimony of Anthony Seay who said that Mr. Montgomery and his coconspirators were selling pills 24/7. That was during Mr. Montgomery’s coconspirators’ trial; the testimony of Raymond Poindexter, a drug user, who also testified about the magnitude of the conspiracy during Mr. Montgomery’s coconspirators’ trial; the cell phone records showing interactions between Mr. Montgomery and a co-conspirator [who] went to trial, which included numerous drug-related text messages. These messages corroborated the testimony of Mr. Seay and Mr. Poindexter. 2 The total weight of 5,000 oxymorphone pills would be 1,100g, which converts to 5,500kg of marijuana, yielding a base offense level of 32. R. 295, Sentencing Hr’g Tr., PID 2926. -7- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. The police reports mentioned seizure of numerous drugs and items of drug paraphernalia during the execution of the search warrant at [redacted] on February 22, 2013, a residence that was associated with Mr. Montgomery, the drugs obtained during controlled buys in this case. Some of the testimony may have been exaggerated, and saying that someone sold five pills a day for the entire scope of the conspiracy is a difficult proposition. It could have been more, it could have been less. After considering all of this evidence together, though, I believe that 5,000 pills is definitely appropriate. R. 333, Resentencing Hr’g Tr., PID 3287–88. The district court then imposed the same sentence it had previously imposed. Montgomery again appeals, claiming as a preliminary matter that the district court again failed to offer enough explanation for its finding. Although the court’s latest explanation is uninspiring, it is enough to meet the minimum requirements of our precedent. The court does identify a few of the facts on which it relies, including the testimony that drug sales occurred “24/7,” that the testimony was corroborated by “numerous” drug-related text messages, the quantity of drugs found during the February 2013 search warrant, and the quantity of drugs obtained during controlled buys. The court then links these facts to an estimate of five pills per day. Because the district court covered the basics, we do not find a need to remand for further explanation. We now turn to Montgomery’s main, related objection that the facts of the case simply do not support the district court’s estimate. Montgomery argues that, because police secured only a small fraction of the 5,000-pill estimate through the search warrant and controlled buys, the bulk of the estimate depends on Seay and Poindexter’s assertions that drug transactions were continuously occurring at Stacker. Montgomery highlights the court’s statements that the witnesses were not “particularly reliable” and that some testimony “may have been exaggerated.” And he emphasizes his view that the testimony remains uncorroborated—for instance, he argues -8- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. that police reports from the controlled buys did not indicate the presence of cars parked around Stacker or people inside conducting transactions, in contrast to Seay and Poindexter’s testimony about continuous drug activity at the residence. Furthermore, during sentencing, Montgomery protested that he often didn’t have pills to sell when Seay would call at the behest of police, proving that he didn’t have pills to sell “every day.” Despite Montgomery’s legitimate concerns, the district court’s estimate—about five pills per day—is supported by competent evidence in the record.3 See Jeross, 521 F.3d at 570. Although the court had concerns with Seay and Poindexter’s credibility, it is evident that the district court decided to credit their testimony to some degree, and we afford that credibility determination “great deference.” Id. Nor was it illegitimate for the court to rely on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, even though the witnesses stood to benefit from their cooperation. See Henley, 360 F.3d at 516. Furthermore, non-testimonial evidence corroborates the fact that Montgomery had continuous access to a flow of drugs. First, police found about 86 oxymorphone and oxycodone pills in bottles at Montgomery’s residence in February 2013. Second, police conducted nearly a dozen controlled buys during the summer of 2015, yielding more than twenty pills in total. Third, both witnesses separately told investigators that Montgomery kept pill bottles on his person in order to facilitate transactions, like those discovered during the February 2013 search. Fourth, and most importantly, it is undisputed that Montgomery was actively sponsoring people to receive and fill pill prescriptions. In pretrial interviews, Seay estimated that Montgomery 3 We need not separate evidence of pills sold by Montgomery from evidence of sales by his coconspirators. As ringleader and most active participant in the conspiracy, Montgomery was responsible for all distribution, as we accepted in our prior opinion. See Merriweather, 728 F. App’x at 520. -9- Case Nos. 18-5904/5905, United States v. Montgomery, et al. was sponsoring at least three or four people, and as many as twelve people. At trial, Seay testified that Montgomery had prescriptions filled at Walmart and K-Mart and that one of Seay’s own friends was sponsored by Montgomery. Poindexter testified at trial that he was present on one occasion when Montgomery had transported a woman to K-Mart to fill a prescription. This testimony dovetails with text messages downloaded from Montgomery’s cell phone, in which contacts coordinate times and payment for doctor appointments and prescription refills. Seay told police he once saw Montgomery sell half of a prescription—30 pills—in under an hour. If a full prescription is usually 60 pills, Montgomery would need less than three oxymorphone prescriptions filled per month to sell five pills per day. In conclusion, given both the testimonial and non-testimonial evidence in the record, the district court’s estimate of 5,000 pills from February 2013 to October 2015 was not clearly erroneous.