Opinion ID: 44269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cocaine Fact-Finding

Text: Given co-conspirator Garcia’s testimony, we also find no reversible error in the district court’s fact-finding that the drug quantity was more than 5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms. We recognize that DeSoto emphasized that no drugs were actually stolen during the February 5, 2000 robbery. However, DeSoto was punished for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, and not for actually completing the crime. The fact that no drugs were actually stolen does not preclude the enhancement. See United States v. Ramsdale, 179 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding there was no error in attributing 15 kilograms of methamphetamine to defendants convicted of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine when defendants had not actually manufactured that amount, but “would probably” buy 15 kilograms of the necessary ingredient “every three weeks” in order to do so). 3 In limiting the resentencing to the drug quantity issue, the district court explained that: “the way I would interpret the letter and spirit of the remand is that they don’t want me revisiting the issues that were previously raised before the district court in the first sentencing and have been reviewed on appeal and anything more than that would undermine their prior appellate determinations.” 10 We also reject DeSoto’s claim that the district court used the wrong legal standard. Although the district court did state that DeSoto was responsible for 5 kilograms of cocaine because this amount was reasonably foreseeable, it also stated that it was basing its drug-quantity finding on the preponderance of the evidence, namely, Garcia’s testimony. In doing so, the district court stated: “I think the record clearly establishes by a preponderance of the evidence based on the credible and reliable and the specific testimony of Mr. Garcia that the deal was supposed to involve five kilos or more of cocaine.”