Opinion ID: 44069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fact-Findings at Byron’s Sentencing

Text: On appeal, in addition to raising the Booker issues discussed below, Byron Pitts challenges the fact-findings during his sentencing hearing.3 Specifically, Byron Pitts challenges the district court’s findings (1) that his offenses involved at least 150 kilograms of cocaine, and (2) that he was not entitled to a minor-role reduction. We review these fact-findings for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (minor-role reduction); United States v. Mertilus, 111 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 1997) (drug quantity). 3 On appeal, Steven Pitts does not challenge the district court’s fact-findings or Guidelines calculations with respect to his sentence. -8- With regard to drug quantity, there was ample evidence to support the 150kilogram quantity of cocaine. For example, the extensive trial evidence included: (1) a confession by Byron Pitts in which he stated that the 110-kilogram cocaine purchase that he orchestrated was to include a second “turn around” involving another 100 kilograms of cocaine; (2) corroborating testimony from two associates of the Pitts brothers establishing a history of large-quantity drug transactions; and (3) the seizure of more than two million dollars in cash (an amount consistent with over 100 kilograms of cocaine). With regard to the minor-role reduction, the trial evidence showed that Byron Pitts’s role in the offenses was substantial and crucial. For example, there were dozens of taped phone conversations between Byron Pitts and the DEA’s confidential informant discussing the details of the drug transaction. Byron set the price and determined where and when the drug transfer was to take place. Also, it was Byron who originally ordered the 100 kilograms of cocaine. The testimony relating to prior transactions also showed that Byron Pitts operated as at least an equal partner with his brother. Taken together, the evidence showed that Byron’s role in the offenses was anything but minor. At a minimum, Byron failed to establish that his role was minor.4 4 As to the minor-role reduction, Byron Pitts has the burden of proving his minor role by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2002). -9- Accordingly, based upon all the evidence in this case, the district court did not clearly err in making its factual determinations as to either the drug quantity or the minor-role reduction.