Opinion ID: 609734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 142 Thompson, DeMarco Sr., Letters, Litterio and Boisoneau challenge the district court's calculation of their sentences under the Sentencing Guidelines. 14 Many of defendants' arguments concern the court's calculation of the amount of narcotics attributable to each defendant. It is useful to say a few words on the subject at the outset. 143 Under the Guidelines, the sentence for a drug-related offense hinges substantially upon the total amount of drugs involved in that offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (drug quantity table). 15 This determination often turns on the relevant conduct provision of the Guidelines, which provides that a defendant's base offense level shall be determined on the basis of all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction.... U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). In the case of concerted criminal activity, conduct for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable includes conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Id. comment note 1. 144 Thus, [t]he central concept ... is foreseeability. United States v. O'Campo, 973 F.2d 1015, 1023 (1st Cir.1992). This means that each member of a drug distribution conspiracy may be held accountable at sentencing for a different quantity of narcotics, depending on the circumstances of each defendant's involvement. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment note 1. The foreseeability determination is inherently fact-bound, and [a] district court's finding of the amount of drugs involved in an offense will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing of clear error. United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1287 (1st Cir.1993). [W]here more than one reasonable inference may be drawn from undisputed facts, the court's choice from among supportable alternatives cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v. McCarthy, 961 F.2d 972, 978 (1st Cir.1992). 145 In this case, the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the drug quantities attributable to each defendant. Callahan and Tulowiecki testified regarding the amounts of narcotics distributed to certain of the defendants. The court also relied heavily on detailed pre-sentence reports prepared by the probation officer. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c). Thereafter, the court issued a memorandum opinion setting forth its factual findings including how much controlled substance is attributable to each defendant in order to establish his base offense level for Guideline purposes. Order of July 12, 1991, at 2.